It is science that created us

>Apparently you haven't been redpilled on logic yet, huh?
If you're going to be a pedantic little shit about it, a critique of "science as an ideology" cannot be inferred logically from the OP, nor can your greentext be inferred from the poster you responded to.

bump for hatred

>science that created us
wat

13 yr. old in his basement posting because
he is bored and has nothing else better to
do now that school is out for the summer....
Science created nothing. Universal rules existed from the bang, science figures them out and interprets them for the rest of us....

"Method," can mean "set of methods," else one could insist there is no such thing as a method simply by demanding more specificity.

Both can be inferred quite easily, m8.

No they cannot, unless you make some pretty radical assumptions. If those amount to valid inferences, then the other poster's inference that the OP is from /pol/ is equally valid as well.

WAT

Science is a language, dipshit" Nothing more.
Put another way, it's a means of enciphering information pertaining to the behavior of physical matter into useful tokens/objects that can be manipulated and rearranged in order to produce 'new' useful objects i.e. objects can be aggregated or disaggregated with/from one another to serve some other useful purpose.
Like any language, science comes with its own dictionary/library of symbolic tokens/objects (semantics), and rules for manipulating/rearranging said tokens (syntax). (These rules can themselves be enciphered in tokens known as "operators".)
It's the syntax of the language of science that endows it with a predictive power unparalleled by any other human language. Why?
Because the syntax of science (or, the *scientific method* is the closest approximation we have to the syntax (rules of operation) of the universe itself. That's effectively what science is: It's an attempt to develop an abstraction of the Universe itself, by translating the syntax of the Universe into a language that can be deciphered by human beings.

The language known as Science is normally used in conjunction with the formal language of mathematics (yes, that's a language too). "Science" can, in theory, be written in any natural language or, indeed, any formal language, provided that its syntactic rules are applied during compilation/translation. Most 'hard science' is expressed in the language of mathematics, which is then translated to - or supplemented by - a natural language (English, French, Russian, etc.).

A 'religion' is much the same phenomena. It's a language used to describe the behavior of physical matter.
Most religions also make an attempt to describe behavior that adherents of said religions consider to have non-physical, immaterial causes i.e. spiritual phenomena. A scientist would generally consider there to be a rational physically-rooted explanation for all such behavior (including human thought/consciousness), albeit usually an incredibly - perhaps even intractably - complex one that might be difficult to express.

The most obvious difference between "science" and "religion" is that science proves, again and again, to be a reliable means of predicting the behavior of physical matter: whereas religion does not. One is a particularly effective (and efficient) language in that regard, while the others are not.
Of course, a person can ascribe a sense of religiosity to the language of science, but then they are generally contravening the syntactic rules of science itself. A good syntactic rule for science would be "all syntax contained herein is subject to review". When a person expresses scientific statements in a dogmatic fashion, they break this rule.
A useful personal anecdote: I often ask dogmatic/adamant types whether they believe in the theory of evolution: When they reply in the affirmative, I ask them to explain it. It's startling how many can't even begin to express the theory in (even) an elementary fashion - I include many 'scientists'.
That, I'm afraid, is an example that most of humanity hasn't progressed at all. They profess allegiance to science in the same manner their forebears likely professed allegiance to e.g. one of the Abrahamic religions, for the same socially driven reasons. They want to fit in... (*That* Southpark episode was very good)
Those kind of people pose a longterm risk to scientific endeavor. If science is infected by religiosity, it opens itself up to the fate of any other language/religion: It could be replaced.

IN CONCLUSION

Ascribing events/behavior/motivation/impulse to "science" is like ascribing Donald Trump's last tweet to the English language.

Science is a language; a means of expression and nothing more.

If OP replaced "science" with "the Universe", they might sound more coherent but, then, since *we* are an intrinsic part of the Universe, that would ultimately be counter-intuitive. It is the syntax of the Universe that does these things; the syntax of the language this Universe is 'written' in. That syntax is analagous to the "Laws of Physics".

>inb4 someone must have written that language
It's not at all clear whether or not that would be necessary. Apparently complex behavior arising out of an infinitude of very simple interactions (see chaos theory, complexity theory, check out Wolfram's work, many other examples - Evolution, hello?) is quite possible. Remember, a major goal of science is to always seek narrower solutions, simpler explanations, laws with more Universal application. GUT is the holy grail. In other words, we're always trying to break things down, or disaggregate objects into simpler models (because they're usually easier to translate into the - yet to be deciphered - language that underlies all human natural language - see Chomsky, Universal Grammar).

You might just interpret it as a natural 'language' derived from apparently complex interactions/events caused by the potential difference between the energy states of elementary particles, which are, in fact, not complex very complex at all. As we further disaggregate the aggregates currently used to express this complex behavior i.e. perform simplification, we may be left with something very simple indeed; a duality/dipolar/dyadic phenomena in mutual helical orbit, for example, but one can only speculate...

Afterthought: In theory, this Universe can be simulated by a Universal Turing Machine i.e. a fully-realized quantum computation device. Such a device could, in theory, overcome problems related to complexity; problems that are practically, if not theoretically, intractable.

One of the most commonly evoked reasons for entertaining the concept of Digital Physics and ideas such as Simulation Theory, is that we (barring catastrophe) are on a similar trajectory at this time. If we can build a computation device capable of simulating this (or a unique but similar alternative) Universe - and there's no theoretical reason why we cannot - is it not equally feasible that our Universe might be a product of a similar process? Could we be reflecting the behavior of our creator(s), effecting some strange holographic repetition of the past? Why should we be first? Why should this be *base Universe*, or ground zero for reality? (the bad news is that there's no conceivable way of determining whether we are or not, nor is their any conceivable way to differentiate a simulation from a physical reality - both are simply translations of electrical transmissions).

Before you wonder where I'm going with this, consider that such a device could, in theory, be used to develop our understanding of physics further. For example, we might construct a crude abstraction of our Universe initially, given that we don't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics (a prerequisite to constructing a perfect copy from first principles, rather than imaging). However, we could then 'play around'/tweak/jury-rig that model and observe it's effects. An analogy might be to brute-force a password enciphered in tokens belonging to a natural language: You simply test all potential aggregates until the behavior in the simulation is indistinguishable from behavior in our own Universe.

We might call this process "DEBUGGING"

Final though (probably):
There are a number of designs, both theoretical and practical, for quantum devices currently in development that are based on a dipolar helical structure i.e. a double-helix.
There are reasons for this which I don't have time to go into, suffice to say that it relates to having to represent higher dimensional objects in lower dimensional space (analagous to representing a 3D object on a 2D media - a cube drawn on a piece of A4 is not a cube, but the observer/interpreter can translate it as such). Using a double helix structure allows us to do something similar.
'God' was said to have created man in His own image, and 'God' (being omnipotent, apparently) is analogous to the Universe itself.
Wouldn't it be ironic if our first simulation of our own Universe turns out to be code running on a structure based on the double-helix? If we were to then simulate humans in our new Universe, they would literally be made in the image of their own Universe, which itself would reflect the image of us as their 'Gods'.
>inb4 christcuck
No. That would be a massive leap based on zero empirical evidence; a flawed induction (as strong an argument as suggesting that our ancient ancestors actually figured this out already using science; suffered civilization collapse; and preserved what little they could in a book of archetypal metaphors and parables that collapsed under the weight of 10k years of Chinese whispers). Just indulge me.
At best, it would imply there is an underlying holographic principle connecting 'life' with the surrounding Universe; that it isn't only organic 'living' matter that derives from the double helix.
It would imply that there really is a much simpler syntax underlying ALL creation - a machine code, if you will, where the dualistic/dyadic/dipolar nature of the Universe might be represented by as little as two semantic tokens (e.g. 1's and 0's) subject to a similar number of syntactic operator tokens.

You're daft but that's alright, most people are.

The term science is used a million and one different ways, but it first and foremost refers to the body of knowledge itself, obtained via the scientific method. It is a collection of information.

This in contrast with philosophy (not a method, but a body of knowledge which in some definitions encompasses science) and mysticism (not a method but a body of knowledge).

wtf i hate science now

>If those amount to valid inferences, then the other poster's inference that the OP is from /pol/ is equally valid as well.
lol
>what is a non sequitur
There needs to be a reason the other poster would assume the OP is from /pol/. Since there isn't enough information to infer such, it can thus be inferred that the other poster is only assuming such for no valid reason, therefore the inference that it is assumed OP is associated with /pol/ for no reason other than that the other poster doesn't like what OP posted is entirely valid.

Fuck, I can't stand idiots.