Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

I have stated often that, in my humble opinion, one of science's major failings is in it's complete disregard of any of life's other valid elements other than the purely objective.  It leads to viewing life as purely and mindlessly mechanistic, which it is not.  (One can imagine all sorts of nonsensical and troubling ideas sprouting from that viewpoint.)  Consciousness, which is what we are (anyone care to deny?) has diddly to do with the mechanics of life, in science's view.  Completely, totally, 100% backwards in my opinion.

 

I have seen something similar in the god thread. I guess the question is how can the subjective be acceptable if, in your mind, the objective is not? Why would something be true in your mind or consciousness but not objectively true?

Science doesn't have an opinion on consciousness except what is observable. Observation and objectivity aren't dirty words or a short cut. It's the hard way. 

I think at the end of the day you have theories which may or may not have merit. You  can't prove them correct at this stage either because they are not correct or because our ability to test such concepts isn't there yet. You have to cop it.

But don't blame scientific method. All it is is testing a theory to see if it fits the real world. Surely you theories are part of the real world. How could we accept the concept of subjectivity into science without accepting faith. I am not looking to get into a debate about theories but just to say that it feels like you are fighting science because your theories can't be proven. It's not sciences fault. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, JensenZ said:

I understand where you are coming from, but once any discussion becomes a discussion about evolution and/or religion, it becomes one of the broadest topics in existence. I spent too many of my younger years debating these topics, and still read material on this topic from time to time. Coincidentally I just finished watching "The God debate: Hichens vs. D'Souza, and "Does God Exist? William Craig vs Christopher Hitchens" last week. I also disagree with the method of debating whereby a person, to support their position, links very long articles to back up their claims. Thank you for not doing that. 

 

The problem is, to address your post as it deserves to be addressed would be a lengthy process, as you introduced a lot of new material, and as you say, most people are into one liners and would not appreciate having to wade through it.

 

My suggestions that nature takes care of bad genes (mutations) naturally and that modern science and medicine has distored this natural process was not intended to be evidence or proof of evolution. I'm a creationist myself, but that doesn't prevent natural selection from occuring. Natural selection has been working hard since man was first created.

First, thanks for your graciousness.  It's a rarity here.  I, myself, am undoubtedly sharp tongued too often.  Shame on me when it is unjust.  Hopefully I haven't been unjust too often.

 

I started watching Hichens vs. D'Souza, pitted against each other in a Does God Exist debate.  I have a great deal of admiration for both of them so I'm not going to root for one or the other.  I think it a shame, in a sense, that there is no recognition that a debate which attempts to settle certain questions can ever be final.  And even more of a shame that it goes unrecognised that there is truth in both religion and in science and that there is also superstition within both.  Neither are beyond reproach nor beyond questioning.

 

I'll only add one further comment specifically about your post where I disagree and hope to add some "new material."  Regarding natural selection one has to ask what is natural selection?  And better still one must ask what and where is natural selection's source?  How does it derive it's power, it's decision making, it's rules?  My observation is that "natural selection" is a term used without definition.  And that it talked about as if it is some entity onto itself.  I think that the term is so taken for granted that questions about what it truly is are rarely, if ever, asked.

 

Now for some new material.  Hang on to your hats on this one.  There is an idea which exists which is not without supporting evidence.  And it runs 180° counter to science's notion that form created consciousness.  Consciousness, rather, creates form and not the other way around.  And since consciousness is not physical then it logically follows that the source of the objective is the subjective.  The objective is merely a 3D representation of the subjective.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have seen something similar in the god thread. I guess the question is how can the subjective be acceptable if, in your mind, the objective is not? Why would something be true in your mind or consciousness but not objectively true?

Science doesn't have an opinion on consciousness except what is observable. Observation and objectivity aren't dirty words or a short cut. It's the hard way. 

I think at the end of the day you have theories which may or may not have merit. You  can't prove them correct at this stage either because they are not correct or because our ability to test such concepts isn't there yet. You have to cop it.

But don't blame scientific method. All it is is testing a theory to see if it fits the real world. Surely you theories are part of the real world. How could we accept the concept of subjectivity into science without accepting faith. I am not looking to get into a debate about theories but just to say that it feels like you are fighting science because your theories can't be proven. It's not sciences fault. 

I get misinterpreted a lot.  I've never alluded to, let alone outright stated, that in my mind I reject objective reality.  See the last sentence of my last post.

 

Another misinterpretation:  I am fighting science.  I am not.  I am critical of science.  Is it wrong to be critical?  Of anything?  And if one is critical of a thing then why does it always seem that criticism then get conflated with an anti view?

[sezze]

While some people focus on what they think to know rather then the science , it is always nice to think about the past .
Flat earth was a thing in the past , same like everything cycling around earth . There's plenty of others but those 2 are obvious right now .I can't believe people believing internet pages beyond official instances , for everything . You might question things , thats always right , but stay to what you know and not what you read. Meaning , how many people know anything about medical or immune systems . They use internet , facebook , and similar to believe anything which people tell them if they fit their standards . I really can't understand antivaxxers , for me its the same like flat earth , or anti gravity believers . They dont understand how it all works ... and i do want to learn them something to make them believe but im not smart enough to do so . ( i can on some parts ... but not on most of it )

[sezze]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I get misinterpreted a lot.  I've never alluded to, let alone outright stated, that in my mind I reject objective reality.  See the last sentence of my last post.

 

Another misinterpretation:  I am fighting science.  I am not.  I am critical of science.  Is it wrong to be critical?  Of anything?  And if one is critical of a thing then why does it always seem that criticism then get conflated with an anti view?

being critical does not mean saying everything is wrong . Thats why there are many others who review it , in case of medicine all countries got their own field of scientists .

But many believe the 5G or anything else beyond their own knowledge , since it does sounds easy and fast

[Tippaporn]

Now before anyone thinks that my 2nd to last post is off topic then I should tie it in to this thread:

Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

Now first of all that's a question which can never be accurately quantified.  At least in my opinion.  Therefore, as I've stated earlier, around page 4 I think, the question is useless.  Then again, it could be useful if an honest accounting of science and religion were made in which both it's pleasant faces were looked at as well as it's ugly faces.

 

Science, like religion, extolls certain ideas which then get accepted by the masses.  In my world the definition of action is an idea in motion.  And since both science and religion are all about ideas then many of those ideas get acted upon.  For better and for worse.

 

One of my main criticisms for both religion and science is that both deny the power of the individual.  I'll be brief here.  Religion teaches that the hand of God intercedes in the lives of men.  Science teaches that anything can happen to anyone at any given time despite one's intentions.  So both strongly encourage the powerlessness of the individual.  So I would say science (as well as religion) has done untold damage in purporting a fallacy which is detrimental to all those who have and do accept it.

 

The idea that consciousness, which is what we are, creates form is the only school of thought which grants ultimate power not to a God, not to an icon, not to a talisman, not to superstition, and not to an uncaring, purposeless, senseless, random universe.

 

Now some may toss away the concepts I've presented out of hand without any investigation as to their validity whatsoever, and claim that these statements are unilaterally false. Which would be no different than writing a book review on a book that one has never read and only viewed it's cover.

As I said before, each and every one of us finds itself in a world with no rule book given us at birth and we go through life, each of us, trying to make sense of our being and our environment.  Religion has attempted to provide us answers just as science is attempting to do now.  Pick the horse you wish to bet on and good luck to each and every one of you.  May you each find your own personal answers, which inevitably will be a mixture of fact, believe and myth.

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, sezze said:

being critical does not mean saying everything is wrong . Thats why there are many others who review it , in case of medicine all countries got their own field of scientists .

But many believe the 5G or anything else beyond their own knowledge , since it does sounds easy and fast

One thing is for certain . . . we're all on our own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kinda feels that way.

[seedy]

The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store consciousness, and manas.

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-four-layers-of-consciousness/

 

I believe Buddhism is a philosophical tradition, not a Religion.

[TKDfella]

@Tippaporn. Was following your discussions with others here but notice your last comment, last paragraph 'Now for some new material....'.???? Not sure if you meant it was new on this thread, to your discussion or a new general hypothesis. Actually, what you say comes under Biocentrism. The idea has been around since last century (perhaps before that, I don't know) Apparently it has seven principles, number one being; What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness; number seven is; Space, like time is not an object or thing but arises only from a bio-form understanding and without an independent reality....there is no self-existing matrix independent of life.

I wonder what the benefits or detriment of this are?

Edited January 3, 2022 by TKDfella

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The idea that consciousness, which is what we are, creates form is the only school of thought which grants ultimate power not to a God, not to an icon, not to a talisman, not to superstition, and not to an uncaring, purposeless, senseless, random universe, but to the individual consciousness.

The window to edit my post has closed so . . . 

[Hummin]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

One thing is for certain . . . we're all on our own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kinda feels that way.

No, we are not on our own, and there is rules. Short answer. 

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

@Tippaporn. Was following your discussions with others here but notice your last comment, last paragraph 'Now for some new material....'.???? Not sure if you meant it was new on this thread, to your discussion or a new general hypothesis. Actually, what you say comes under Biocentrism. The idea has been around since last century (perhaps before that, I don't know) Apparently it has seven principles, number one being; What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness; number seven is; Space, like time is not an object or thing but arises only from a bio-form understanding and without an independent reality....there is no self-existing matrix independent of life.

I wonder what the benefits or detriment of this are?

Yeah, it ain't really new material in the sense that the idea has never been heard before.  My meaning of "new" is that I believe the vast majority of people anywhere are completely unfamiliar with the idea of consciousness creating form.  I mean it does turn much accepted thought on it's head and it's vast implications make it a drastic game changer.  Which is usually another reason for it's outright uncritical rejection.  To accept the idea is to force one to not only majorly rearrange one's mental furniture but to toss much of the useless furniture away into the dustbin.  More than likely that's not going to happen.  Changes like that usually don't occur within a person until a person is faced with extremely unsavoury results in life due to current thinking and is finally forced to admit to himself that a change of ideas is the only way out of his predicament.

 

What I'm on about does not come from any ism.  There is no dogma.  There are no rituals.  No incantations, spells, enchantments, hoodoo, churches, institutions, leaders, followers, authority figures, priests, and the like.  

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Hummin said:

No, we are not on our own, and there is rules. Short answer. 

Not trying to be smart but it's too short of an answer for me.  I've said it before.  Most folks aren't willing to invest the time or effort to make their thoughts clearly understandable.  One liners, a few sentences perhaps, and not much more.  Short answer is that your answer is no more than a declaration.  It explains nothing.

[JensenZ]

4 hours ago, sezze said:

While some people focus on what they think to know rather then the science , it is always nice to think about the past .
Flat earth was a thing in the past , same like everything cycling around earth . There's plenty of others but those 2 are obvious right now .I can't believe people believing internet pages beyond official instances , for everything . You might question things , thats always right , but stay to what you know and not what you read. Meaning , how many people know anything about medical or immune systems . They use internet , facebook , and similar to believe anything which people tell them if they fit their standards . I really can't understand antivaxxers , for me its the same like flat earth , or anti gravity believers . They dont understand how it all works ... and i do want to learn them something to make them believe but im not smart enough to do so . ( i can on some parts ... but not on most of it )

It creates a problem when you put labels on people and by doing so have virtuatlly said they are   "nutty". For example, you state that people who don't want to get vaccinated are "antivaxxers". You say you "cant understand anitvaxxers", but you might have well have said these people are "crazy" as that is how it comes across. You've already made up your mind what these people are and put them into a box. To back up your statement you give the impression you are an expert on the human immune system, and further insult "anitvaxxers"  by putting them in the same box as "flat earthers" etc. Further debate with you on the topic of vaccination is impossible as you have made up your mind and closed it.

 

There are degrees of "antivaxxers". It's not a binary decision that you're either one of them or not. I don't want to be vaccinated for many reasons, but will submit to one if I am forced to (by regulations). I'm confident I will survive a covid infection and believe I have already had a mild dose of it on 2 occassions. I take good care of my body. The long term effects of a rushed vaccination program are unknown. For all we know, the world is creating a vast number of immune compromised people. Let's see in 10 years. There are reasons why vaccinations took many years to develop in the past, and testing also took many years.

 

There are a lot of people who don't won't to be vaccinated, and the number of Thai people not wanting to is growing fast as news of negative effects grows.

[TKDfella]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Yeah, it ain't really new material in the sense that the idea has never been heard before.  My meaning of "new" is that I believe the vast majority of people anywhere are completely unfamiliar with the idea of consciousness creating form.  I mean it does turn much accepted thought on it's head and it's vast implications make it a drastic game changer.  Which is usually another reason for it's outright uncritical rejection.  To accept the idea is to force one to not only majorly rearrange one's mental furniture but to toss much of the useless furniture away into the dustbin.  More than likely that's not going to happen.  Changes like that usually don't occur within a person until a person is faced with extremely unsavoury results in life due to current thinking and is finally forced to admit to himself that a change of ideas is the only way out of his predicament.

 

What I'm on about does not come from any ism.  There is no dogma.  There are no rituals.  No incantations, spells, enchantments, hoodoo, churches, institutions, leaders, followers, authority figures, priests, and the like.  

Yes, it would certainly be a major problem for 'mainstream science' if there was evidence for consciousness creating form but this just one of the many 'hypotheses' that would necessitate a complete change. Max Tegmark and his 'mathematical universe' is another example. But then again there are many problems that the scientific 'community' have today (none that can be debated here) but the problem, as I see it, is that the problems breed mistrust among the general public about just what the scientific institutions are doing. For example, there is now (began in 2019) a push by CERN to build a Collider that is much bigger than the one presently in the news, LHC and some of the public wonder about its benefit. If the reason communicated to the public are 'because the LHC didn't find this & that' the public can ask whether 'this & that' will be found in the next...or the next...Even some scientists think it doubtful. And this isn't the only branch of science having such problems. Many years ago the public complained that there wasn't enough communication about what scientists did and now, I think, perhaps there is so much available to the public that they don't where to start and so many don't bother (except perhaps to sit back and complain about human benefits taking a back seat, as it were.????) 

[JensenZ]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science, like religion, extolls certain ideas which then get accepted by the masses.  In my world the definition of action is an idea in motion.  And since both science and religion are all about ideas then many of those ideas get acted upon.  For better and for worse.

I'll try to keep this brief. Science is not anti-religion and vice versa. What is classed as supernatural is only something that cannot be explained by science at this point in time. Imagine trying to explain gravity, electromagnetic attraction and many other "things" which cannot be seen to a person living 1000 years ago.  

 

 Many scientists have religious beliefs. Being a scientist does not mean the person is anti-theist. (Hitchens preferred to use the term "anti-theist" rather than "atheist").

Edited January 3, 2022 by JensenZ

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Yes, it would certainly be a major problem for 'mainstream science' if there was evidence for consciousness creating form but this just one of the many 'hypotheses' that would necessitate a complete change. Max Tegmark and his 'mathematical universe' is another example. But then again there are many problems that the scientific 'community' have today (none that can be debated here) but the problem, as I see it, is that the problems breed mistrust among the general public about just what the scientific institutions are doing. For example, there is now (began in 2019) a push by CERN to build a Collider that is much bigger than the one presently in the news, LHC and some of the public wonder about its benefit. If the reason communicated to the public are 'because the LHC didn't find this & that' the public can ask whether 'this & that' will be found in the next...or the next...Even some scientists think it doubtful. And this isn't the only branch of science having such problems. Many years ago the public complained that there wasn't enough communication about what scientists did and now, I think, perhaps there is so much available to the public that they don't where to start and so many don't bother (except perhaps to sit back and complain about human benefits taking a back seat, as it were.????) 

Max Tegmark is breaking some ground, in my opinion, in his pursuit of theories of a multiverse.

"One potential resolution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics suggests that all possible outcomes of quantum events actually occur in separate realities, each with it's own probabilities."

 

Without the existence of probabilities choice would be impossible.  I'm pleased to see the advances made in this direction.  Science does have the ability to penetrate reality to a much greater extent, again in my humble opinion.  When science gets around to understanding that the "one god, one self, one body, one world" model is obsolete then there could be some serious tectonic shifts in thinking.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

I'll try to keep this brief. Science is not anti-religion and vice versa. What is classed as supernatural is only something that cannot be explained by science at this point in time. Imagine trying to explain gravity, electromagnetic attraction and many other "things" which cannot be seen to a person living 1000 years ago.  

 

 Many scientists have religious beliefs. Being a scientist does mean the person is anti-theist. (Hitchens preferred to use the term "anti-theist" rather than atheist).

What is classed as coincidence, luck, chance, fate, accident, fluke, and for computing - the infamous glitch are all things that cannot be explained by science at this point in time.  LOL

[TKDfella]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Max Tegmark is breaking some ground, in my opinion, in his pursuit of theories of a multiverse.

"One potential resolution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics suggests that all possible outcomes of quantum events actually occur in separate realities, each with it's own probabilities."

 

Without the existence of probabilities choice would be impossible.  I'm pleased to see the advances made in this direction.  Science does have the ability to penetrate reality to a much greater extent, again in my humble opinion.  When science gets around to understanding that the "one god, one self, one body, one world" model is obsolete then there could be some serious tectonic shifts in thinking.

 

 

I am not a proponent of Multiverse conjectures, at least in their present form because like the many Inflation ideas of the universe, one can always find one that fits with one idea or another... √-1 being as real as me is a bit uncomfortable ????. In addition, they cannot be tested (at present) which is a problem. However, the passage you quote seems, to me, to fit the Many Worlds conjecture which realises all out comes in the probabilities of quantum mechanics which is only a level or two up from all probabilities describing different timelines.

Having said that, it is good that there are many ideas and people are allowed to present them...all interesting stuff. But whether they are beneficial or detrimental to humans...????

[Yellowtail]

"Seems odd to me that some people nowadays are pushing back against science. Some against all fields and all knowledge." 

 

I've never known anyone that was pushing back against science, where do you find them? 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

This post is not about Tippaporn's theories, but, some old friends were into ideas and theories based on consciousness and form. New Age stuff. Some you might call hippies others just were 'normal' but had a crystal or two and few books. 

It seemed gentler back in the day and not into more extreme stuff. Today new age hippies can be a  bit militant  on covid, 5G, and stuff. 

 

The old new agers liked books by Dan Millman, Edgar Cayce, Louise Hay and others. More recently there was the book The Secret that looked at the idea of consciousness and conscious thought influencing your life. Dreams as predictions. Wishing and manifesting your life better.

To me it was a bit entertaining but then just seemed like wishful thinking. Because it never got out of first gear of ideas and into second gear with some proof.

Even gentle ideas, that take you away from science and towards a type of faith, can be harmful to critical thinking and focus in my opinion.

With a few government controls, to stop rogue scientists going to far, science has to be for the best. 

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Even gentle ideas, that take you away from science and towards a type of faith, can be harmful to critical thinking and focus in my opinion.

With a few government controls, to stop rogue scientists going to far, science has to be for the best. 

????

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This post is not about Tippaporn's theories, but, some old friends were into ideas and theories based on consciousness and form. New Age stuff. Some you might call hippies others just were 'normal' but had a crystal or two and few books. 

It seemed gentler back in the day and not into more extreme stuff. Today new age hippies can be a  bit militant  on covid, 5G, and stuff. 

 

The old new agers liked books by Dan Millman, Edgar Cayce, Louise Hay and others. More recently there was the book The Secret that looked at the idea of consciousness and conscious thought influencing your life. Dreams as predictions. Wishing and manifesting your life better.

To me it was a bit entertaining but then just seemed like wishful thinking. Because it never got out of first gear of ideas and into second gear with some proof.

Even gentle ideas, that take you away from science and towards a type of faith, can be harmful to critical thinking and focus in my opinion.

With a few government controls, to stop rogue scientists going to far, science has to be for the best. 

Does believing the "science" not require faith?

[zzaa09]

11 hours ago, seedy said:

The Buddha taught that consciousness is always continuing, like a stream of water. Consciousness has four layers. The four layers of consciousness are mind consciousness, sense consciousness, store consciousness, and manas.

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-four-layers-of-consciousness/

 

I believe Buddhism is a philosophical tradition, not a Religion.

Indeed. Though, it's quite reasonable to suggest that you might struggle within the confines of this crowd as to the wisdom of what is and what isn't. The ignorance is quite thick and bounded to cultural centrism. 

[StreetCowboy]

40 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Indeed. Though, it's quite reasonable to suggest that you might struggle within the confines of this crowd as to the wisdom of what is and what isn't. The ignorance is quite thick and bounded to cultural centrism. 

Only two things are infinite - space and stupidity.  They recently sent into orbit a telescope to try and disprove the former.  No-one has ever argued with the latter.  Ignorance is unbounded.  People are ignorant of things that we could not even imagine. 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

 People are ignorant of things that we could not even imagine. 

 

How do you know?

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I am not a proponent of Multiverse conjectures, at least in their present form because like the many Inflation ideas of the universe, one can always find one that fits with one idea or another... √-1 being as real as me is a bit uncomfortable ????. In addition, they cannot be tested (at present) which is a problem. However, the passage you quote seems, to me, to fit the Many Worlds conjecture which realises all out comes in the probabilities of quantum mechanics which is only a level or two up from all probabilities describing different timelines.

Having said that, it is good that there are many ideas and people are allowed to present them...all interesting stuff. But whether they are beneficial or detrimental to humans...????

I don't agree with his ideas as to how a multiverse works but I am happy that there are serious discussions taking place in the scientific community regarding the existence of more than a single reality.  This one world idea isn't going to cut it in the long term if the actual reality is multiverse.  Or even beyond multiverse as multiverse implies alternate realities which are only physical.  It is plainly evident that there exist items in our world which are not physical at all.

 

As I stated in an earlier post, without the existence of probabilities choice would be impossible.  And I should add that without the existence of choice freedom would be impossible.

 

For humans it is up to individual humans to decide whether a thing will be to their own individual benefit or not.  "Good" and "bad" are flipsides of the same coin.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Does believing the "science" not require faith?

Not if you do not believe but keep room for doubt. Keep an open mind.

We all probably fall into a bit of faith in different aspects of life due to human nature, laziness, etc.

On the other hand though, it's best not to let cynicism, or faith in other areas of life, e.g. following a political party or friends advice or loud noises on the internet or love and hate, to stop you accepting what is likely to be correct. Otherwise you can become stuck and it can make you question things to the point of ridiculousness.    

Information from sources that have proven reliability, or where there is evidence that a new source has done the hard work, is likely to be correct and you can rely on that advice.

From time to time a reassessment is required.

Our own judgements of what is likely to be correct are fallible too so just keep an open mind. A bit obvious but there it is. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:07 PM, charmonman said:

Science has clearly been hugely beneficial. How could understanding how things work not be?

Technology on the other hand, more of a mixed bag.

IMO science just "is". Whether it is beneficial is down to the use that is made of it and that's by fallible, greedy and corrupt humanity.

I'm sure there is plenty of science that would be beneficial if used, but wasn't profitable enough to be put into use.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:45 PM, Old Croc said:

There should be no pollsters in the negative.

 

The non-hypocritical of them will be living in the woods rubbing two sticks together, sans computer, and unaware of anything beyond the nearest tree.

You think humans couldn't invent stuff without a "scientist" being involved? Most of humanity existed before "science" even became a word.