Changes

'''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}</ref>|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all,{{#tag:ref|Merriam-Webster dictionary, declared Encyclopædia Britannica Company, states entry ''science'' among synonyms for ''knowledge''.<ref>{{cite web |title=[entry in dcitionary]knowledge, noun|publisher=Merriam-Webster dictionary|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge|accessdate=July 13, 2014}}</ref>|group=note}} postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty. Similarly to [[Gnostic]] manuscripts, postmodern science texts are often marked with vagueness, word-spinning and tedium.   

'''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}</ref>|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all,{{#tag:ref|Merriam-Webster dictionary, declared Encyclopædia Britannica Company, states entry ''science'' among synonyms for ''knowledge''.<ref>{{cite web |title=[entry in dcitionary]knowledge, noun|publisher=Merriam-Webster dictionary|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge|accessdate=July 13, 2014}}</ref>|group=note}} postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty. Similarly to [[Gnostic]] manuscripts, postmodern science texts are often marked with vagueness, word-spinning and tedium.   

Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the [[UC Berkeley|University of California (Berkeley)]] explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions{{#tag:ref|cf.''The assumption is now known to be only a very rough approximation to the truth. ...The assumption will serve as a reasonable working hypothesis until it leads to contradictions. ... The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. ... ''<ref name="Observational Approach">{{cite web

Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the [[UC Berkeley|University of California (Berkeley)]] explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven flimsy assumptions{{#tag:ref|cf.''The assumption is now known to be only a very rough approximation to the truth. ...The assumption will serve as a reasonable working hypothesis until it leads to contradictions. ... The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. ... ''<ref name="Observational Approach">{{cite web

|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology

|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology

|author=Edwin Hubble

|author=Edwin Hubble

|access date=27.09.2012

|access date=27.09.2012

}}</ref>

}}</ref>

|group=note}} and use science only as a [[buzzword]] and an intellectual fig leaf hiding their preconceived ideas through which they filter data. Moreover, the scientific establishment is regarded as very much [[Politically correct|politicized]].

|group=note}} and use science only as a [[buzzword]] and an intellectual fig leaf hiding their preconceived ideas through which they [[Cherry picking|filter data]]. Moreover, the scientific establishment is regarded as very much [[Politically correct|politicized]].

In Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular Humanist [[Paul Kurtz]] insists that rejecting [[objectivity]] is a mistake and that [[Postmodernism]] is counterproductive, even [[nihilism|nihilistic]].<ref name="AllAboutWorldview">{{cite web |title=Postmodern Science|author=|publisher=AllAboutWorldview.org#sthash.XYgaloi0.dpuf|access date=03.03.2013|url=http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-science.htm|quote=For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with the Postmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.}}</ref>  

In Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular Humanist [[Paul Kurtz]] insists that rejecting [[objectivity]] is a mistake and that [[Postmodernism]] is counterproductive, even [[nihilism|nihilistic]].<ref name="AllAboutWorldview">{{cite web |title=Postmodern Science|author=|publisher=AllAboutWorldview.org#sthash.XYgaloi0.dpuf|access date=03.03.2013|url=http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-science.htm|quote=For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with the Postmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.}}</ref>