posted April 23, 2013 05:15 AM            

This quote is reproduced from John O'Neill's historic letter to astrologer Sydney Omarr, written in 1951. O'Neill was an accomplished astronomer, as well science editor of the New York Herald Tribune, and winner of the Pulitzer Prize and of the prestigious Clement Cleveland Medal. A true man of science. Yet, for years, he supported a position which was, in his own words, "the utter negation of the scientific attitude".

O'Neill is hardly the first celebrated "man of science" to change his mind, and to express his approval of astrology, along with his regret and disappointment at the systematic stigmatization of astrology within the scientific community; the complete failure of most scientists to accord it a fair hearing in conformity with the scientific method.

It makes you wonder how many other good things are being suppressed and dismissed in the name of science. How often do scientists, and the most vocal supporters of science, completely contradict the principles which are most dear and necessary to Science itself? How often has science, and scientists, been used in the service of less than evolved ends?

We know that the average man on the street knows very little of "double-blind studies", and has little patience for the subtleties of scientific processes. Yet, nothing -- not even religion -- so thoroughly commands his undivided and unquestioning allegiance. It is enough for a company to produce so-called "scientific findings" for the masses to give their unmitigated support. Of course, anyone who has seriously investigated the matter, knows perfectly well how easy it is to falsify research and to make statistics speak in favor of the lie.

Consider, what would war be like without guns, grenades, tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear and biological weapons? Who made these things, if not engineers and other men of science? What did they make them for, if not to terrorize and wreak devastation on others? And who put Flouride in our water? Who makes sure all manner of toxic chemicals make it into our food? Who invented those televisions which work miracles in spreading misinformation and promoting the most cold-blooded political agendas all around the globe? Surely, men of science helped to create these things, which we know are not only sources of deception, disease, and death, but also pose the only serious threat to the existence of life on this planet.

Science, then, must be evil, right?
The source of all society's worst ills?

No, no, absolutely not!

Sure, a quick look around might easily convince us otherwise, and certainly many non-industrialized cultures have been slow to embrace technological progress, in light of so many blunders committed in the name of science. But, just because scientists are flawed, and science has often been misused in support of horrific ends, science itself is not to blame, is it? There are plenty of good scientists, aren't there? And science has accomplished so much that is good and useful to mankind. It would be utter foolishness to wage a war on something, just because that thing has been used to silence, mislead, sicken, and murder countless people. Right?

posted April 23, 2013 07:32 AM            

Science does not kill or poison or does anything....in fact its completly neutral.

posted April 23, 2013 08:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
Science is to be used at the hands of its wielder and not in that empty matter you put it.

Science does not kill or poison or does anything....in fact its completely neutral.

It will be like saying that science was used for killing and pain and destruction because it was held in the hands of religious maniac wishing to kill all that's unwilling to bow to their faith...

---

posted April 23, 2013 04:56 PM            

“There isn't anything to worry about between science and religion, because the contradictions are just in your own mind. Of course they are there, but they are not in the Lord's mind because He made the whole thing, so there is a way, if we are smart enough, to understand them so that we will not have any contradictions.”
― Henry J. Eyring

“I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing.”
― S. Kelley Harrell

posted April 23, 2013 07:07 PM            

Fire (interesting enough, something the gods are said to have punished humanity for having stolen in some traditions, like Prometheus) is a tool that is both lifesaving and life destroying but doesn't promote a dogma that encourages destruction. I see fire as part of science, but burning people at the stake as religious.

posted April 23, 2013 10:53 PM            

doommlord and Pixie,