> Nothing is outside the domain of science.

I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and make a guess: you have no proof for this claim of fact?

I am endlessly fascinated how science is held up by its fan base as superior because it is evidenced based, yet when defending challenges to it, any "fact" can be deployed effortlessly, with no evidence required.

> It's not about culture

I strongly believe that thinking is downstream from culture.

> science makes everything its domain

It certainly rhetorically extends ownership to all of "reality" (identical to The Universe, dontcha know), but they certainly do not investigate all that can be.

Here's a nice discussion:

The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist

https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=hFdhJ1U5pbFP6BEf

Note that the gloves remain on, as always. (Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why humans are perpetually wandering around confused, without knowing it.)

It's a slick technique, especially if it is done intuitively:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

Furthermore: do you consider scientists to be a part of science?

If so: how do you know if everything important is actively being worked on by at least one scientist (never mind a near optimal number)? (See also: [1])

If not: how does science accomplish anything? How can only ideas interact with the physical realm, if not through human bodies engaging in work?

> Scientific method is generally applicable

"generally", "applicable"

I am also fascinated at the loose language science fans use when describing their ideology, that is so great because it deals in precision.

> it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify.

"identifying"

Here is a pattern, Humans.

Well done, Scientists!

Can you point me to science's study of war, and their strategies for ending it in the near future? It's a pretty important topic, they surely have thousands of the very best minds on it I would think, since it is their domain (in that it is a part of everything).

> Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random...

Present a proof.

Just because your ideology is sitting in the throne right now doesn't mean you get beliefs = facts freebies like this, especially when shit talking competing ideologies for that very same behavior is a core component of your marketing/indoctrination strategy.

These conversations remind me of one of my favorite sayings:

"People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."

- Carl Jung

I'd recommend him, but he is a peddler of "woo woo".

[1] From foolswison's link:

"Plenty of scientists are theists. But the ones that do good science leave their theism at the door and try to explain things in naturalistic terms (even if theism is the reason they entered that door in the first place)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

I don't keep detailed records, but I have had easily hundreds of science fans tell me with absolute sincerity and good faith that any scientists that don't behave the way they describe (say, if I was to link them to articles) don't count, because they aren't scientists. (Actual scientists only behave perfectly, of course.) I wonder if science not studying such things (ontology, etc) and thus not constantly tooting their horn about it in the media [2] might have something to do with why their fans have utterly no knowledge of it, and thus believe that it doesn't exist[3].

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+train+a+neural+networ...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze

Apologies for any negative vibes, I just think it's a fascinating phenomenon, and fun to discuss. Curiosity used to be so popular!