The Lab Coat Effect

The Lab Coat Effect …or how modern science is turning into the early church and how faith is encroaching on hard science, again. Despite the fact that they should never conflict. Never is the answer given to ‘how’ the same as ‘why’. Science answers how, religion answers why. This effect can best be summed up in the following way. You’re walking to work one day and a smelly old man that reeks of Jack Daniels accosts you, with an odd thing, a stock tip, and then wanders off. How likely are you to even look into it? Now imagine a different trip to work and as you’re waiting to cross the street you hear one man in a nice Italian suit with glasses and a leather attaché case give another man of similar appearance the same whispered tip. Which source would you personally consider more credible? I think it would for most by the suits. You might even consider this behavior logical, but in fact it is not, because as any real scientist or logician knows, correlation does not denote causation. For example, the ratio of dodge vipers to rich people is much higher than the ratio of Vipers to poor people, this is a correlation between owning a Viper, and having money, but it does not denote causation, I.E. Buying a Viper will not make you rich. In fact the opposite is true. Consider what may be hidden from you, the bum may be an ex stock analyst and spends his time watching TV, and listening to the radio, made homeless by his obsessive compulsive behavior, his tip may be the best on the planet. Also, the broker may have been intentionally trying to drive the other man, perhaps competition, broke. Apply what you’ve just thought about to a guy in a lab coat and glasses and a guy in a clerical collar with a rosary. Now imagine they are discussing physics, which will you believe? Sadly you may have to just find out for yourself. A scientist should be ready at any moment to scrap his entire worldview should evidence not bear it out, anything less is merely faith. But it’s becoming all too common for scientists to reject ideas basically because of tradition, vested interest, and stubbornness. I think Max Planck summed it up best. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it’s opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." A theory being shredded is actually a dream come true for a real scientist because it means the universe is actually more mysterious, and therefore more interesting than previously thought, and now we understand it a bit better. It’s like

reaching the end of a glorious book only to discover there is a whole other chapter, hidden within. I would have science consider every "pipe dream" because until it's truly considered how can you label it a pipe dream? Flight was once a pipe dream after all. Many times you’ll hear a scientists utter something like "Lacks peer review acceptance." As a way of invalidating a rival theory. As stated before majority does not equal veracity. Any atheist should be able to explain that one. As a result of this attitude and others I really am losing respect for orthodox science as it’s basically becoming a cult. It's increasingly and disturbingly more about who said something than what was said. I'm not interested in consensus with regard to science, again, for a long time the consensus was that flight was simply not possible. Consensus has no impact on reality. Genius is almost by definition to be rejected by the majority until much later. No reasonable person can conclude that the modern scientific process isn’t driven by self interest and competition for glory. If it was about the data alone eponyms wouldn’t be so ubiquitous. No one wants to obviate their profession, that's like expecting congress to dissolve itself for the good of the people. The problem is with science, it’s often a good thing to put yourself out of work. And they need over sight to make sure they aren’t scamming us. Color me cynical, but I think that the billion dollar cancer treatment industry has something to do with the total lack of a cancer cure. Science drops lingo and names they know the general public will not understand to further obfuscate the working of reality because they like having a monopoly on that data. Scientists by and large are in the business of alienating the public and selling interpretation. Just look at professional expert witnesses in the court system. It's a startling fact that science today has many similarities with the early church. Allow me to elaborate. Let’s compare a modern day orthodox scientist and a priest of the early church. They both have a body of text that is incomprehensible to the layman, both texts are unreadable without special linguistic training, both profess to understand what's in that body of text better than the layman could, both profess that the text is extremely important and reveals the nature of reality to one degree or another, both throw up barriers to the acquisition or translation of the text for lay examination, both are caustic of any work not approved by their orthodox ruling bodies and councils, and perhaps most importantly people take their word on things because of title without having to see evidence, seeing a pattern here?

Using Latin and lingo in an era of instant translation is simply to keep the layman out more than anything. The modern scientist will be obviated one day. Modern scientists remind me of Herbert's Spacing Guild. They are self serving relics who still use laughable terms, as mentioned before, like "artery", which comes from the Greek arteria, which in turn means windpipe. I think my favorite though is hippocampus, which you would think means something like “memory structure” but no, it’s Greek for seahorse, that’s right, according to science’s absurd occult language there is a sea horse in your brain encoding your memories. Clearly they're far too arbitrary and slow to change and as they add layer upon layer of bureaucracy, and as they discourage entry into their little clubs the problem only gets worse. Look how long it took to stop calling Pluto a planet. Look at the brontosaurus. Most of them still think we evolved on the savannah, they argue for decades over trivial things and their motivation is about veracity about as often as congressional debates aren’t about getting reelected. And frankly I can't see it being due to anything but greed. Greed apart from selfishness, is self concern taken to an unhealthy extreme. Greed is the point where the thirst and quest for things that typically provide survival and enjoyment begin to adversely impact either or both, for one or others. It may not be a conscious conspiracy for the bulk of the scientific community, but it is for some. Regardless of the veracity of a given idea, which to most people is as I said going to be a matter of faith. Their attitude is indicative of a severe and crippling systemic problem, the consequences of which I leave to your imagination.