Change?

[The Stranger]

i only have a short time, so ill come back later for more.

but i want to make one thing clear.

I think there is a difference between practical religion (going to church or other traditions and such etc) and religion as a system (which becomes institutionalised, basically the idea of religion, the way it works etc) and also a difference between practical science (testing atombombs, finding antidotes for sickness etc) and science as a system (which as also become institutionalised)

I'm not comparing practical science with practical religion or systematic religion. i'm comparing systematic religion with systematic science...

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

ehm... i think religion has been in play and control far longer than science (as a controlling system). I doubt science will make it that far. but thats a bit besides the point, if objectivity is not the standard, but pragmatism is, than that challenges the very nature and foundation of science. and the mere fact that one system superceeded another doesnt mean it is a better system per se. When the roman empire changed from democracy into imperialist authocracy, its not automatically true that the empire was a better system. Same can be said about communist revolutions in china or russia.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

i'm aware of that. but that loop ends when you change it into "there is no objective truth which can be known beyond all doubt by humans with their present cognitive abilities."
i cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it, so its an impasse. it has been for a long time.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.

only in a very limited time on a very limited place on the globe.