user19794: From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following science preaching totally based on blind faith with no personal prove?
And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect?
[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]

user19481: Pure science is simply science.  By definition, it ought to have no beliefs associated with it.  But as it is practiced by imperfect people, what we call science in the West is very much plagued by a substantial amount of clinging to views.
For example, the theory of natural selection is often touted as as unquestionable scientific doctrine.  Challenging it in anyway would get one labeled as a crank at best and end one’s career at worst. But it remains a theory - a well tested, fairly conclusive one - but it’s not scientific law.
I think one sees larger evidence of this especially in the softer sciences like psychology.  The American Psychological Association long ago decided that liberal politics were far more important than actual data and the scientific method.  You can see this manifest especially in their positions regarding gender expression. Any paper, however benign and well intentioned, that challenges their leftist orthodoxy on the subject is quickly censured and the author labeled a bigot.
So no, science isn’t a religion in theory, but remains one in practice.  Proving all that it espouses to ourself would also be largely impractical and, I’d argue, a complete waste of time.  But where we can benefit from science are in those places where it makes us feel uncomfortable.  That discomfort is where our unexamined biases lie and is the springboard for insight.

user19480: Science is not a religion. It is a category of human knowledge that is gained by following the Scientific Method, which is based on verification. So Science is a practice, the result of the practice (verified knowledge), and the practitioners of the method.
However, scientists are human, not gods, and they practice the method with varying degrees of expertise, honesty, and ego. Thus, there are well-known faults with the practice of Science today (“Science for sale,” “Science advancing one funeral at a time,” etc.)
Today, Science is practiced using technology that operates beyond the human scale (micro and macro levels) and the ability of the vast majority of humans to validate for themselves. Thus, non-scientists in general must accept scientific knowledge as it is given to them by a scientific authority, so it can have the appearance of religious belief.
And although scientists can question the findings of Science, the general public cannot, as some of the negative reactions even here to the OP’s question evidences. Thus Science takes on the appearance of a religion-like authority.
Lastly, because this is getting too long, the very fact that all scientific knowledge is falsifiable means that it is not absolute knowledge, and is never absolutely true, but only contingently true (two truths), thus, for non-scientists it must be accepted on blind-faith alone because the ‘evidence’ is also contingent. Thus, again, this knowledge takes on the specter religious doctrine.
The Dalai Lama is known to be a firm believer in Science and its findings. But does he accept the scientific understanding of what “mind” is? Absolutely not. To do so would undermine the deep wisdom of Buddhism which holds that enlightenment is possible, that an end of suffering is obtainable through mind-training, and that the physical reality that is the whole and complete range of the scientific endeavor, is in a certain way illusory (Emptiness). If the Dalai Lama was to do this, he would undermine his own authority, and in retrospect call into question the standing of the Buddha, who did not follow the scientific method, and thus, whose teachings were never verified by other scientists.
Science is not absolute truth and for all practical purposes its endeavors are beyond the ability of non-scientists to fathom, or verify, and thus, its assertions must be accepted on belief.

user13992: Science is not a religion, it is a method. Science does not "preach", has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.
In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:


Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.
Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.


To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms & particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.

“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific
investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact
emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And
suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist
theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the
scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama


19794: <p>From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following <a href="https://sangham.net/de/tipitaka/sut/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than#fn-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">science preaching</a> totally based on blind faith with no personal prove?</p>
<p>And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect?</p>
<p><em>[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]</em></p>
 19481: <p>Pure science is simply science.  By definition, it ought to have no beliefs associated with it.  But as it is practiced by imperfect people, what we call science in the West is very much plagued by a substantial amount of clinging to views.</p>
<p>For example, the theory of natural selection is often touted as as unquestionable scientific doctrine.  Challenging it in anyway would get one labeled as a crank at best and end one’s career at worst. But it remains a theory - a well tested, fairly conclusive one - but it’s not scientific law.</p>
<p>I think one sees larger evidence of this especially in the softer sciences like psychology.  The American Psychological Association long ago decided that liberal politics were far more important than actual data and the scientific method.  You can see this manifest especially in their positions regarding gender expression. Any paper, however benign and well intentioned, that challenges their leftist orthodoxy on the subject is quickly censured and the author labeled a bigot.</p>
<p>So no, science isn’t a religion in theory, but remains one in practice.  Proving all that it espouses to ourself would also be largely impractical and, I’d argue, a complete waste of time.  But where we can benefit from science are in those places where it makes us feel uncomfortable.  That discomfort is where our unexamined biases lie and is the springboard for insight.</p>
 19480: <p>Science is not a religion. It is a category of human knowledge that is gained by following the Scientific Method, which is based on verification. So Science is a practice, the result of the practice (verified knowledge), and the practitioners of the method.</p>
<p>However, scientists are human, not gods, and they practice the method with varying degrees of expertise, honesty, and ego. Thus, there are well-known faults with the practice of Science today (“Science for sale,” “Science advancing one funeral at a time,” etc.)</p>
<p>Today, Science is practiced using technology that operates beyond the human scale (micro and macro levels) and the ability of the vast majority of humans to validate for themselves. Thus, non-scientists in general must accept scientific knowledge as it is given to them by a scientific authority, so it can have the appearance of religious belief.</p>
<p>And although scientists can question the findings of Science, the general public cannot, as some of the negative reactions even here to the OP’s question evidences. Thus Science takes on the appearance of a religion-like authority.</p>
<p>Lastly, because this is getting too long, the very fact that all scientific knowledge is falsifiable means that it is not absolute knowledge, and is never absolutely true, but only contingently true (two truths), thus, for non-scientists it must be accepted on blind-faith alone because the ‘evidence’ is also contingent. Thus, again, this knowledge takes on the specter religious doctrine.</p>
<p>The Dalai Lama is known to be a firm believer in Science and its findings. But does he accept the scientific understanding of what “mind” is? Absolutely not. To do so would undermine the deep wisdom of Buddhism which holds that enlightenment is possible, that an end of suffering is obtainable through mind-training, and that the physical reality that is the whole and complete range of the scientific endeavor, is in a certain way illusory (Emptiness). If the Dalai Lama was to do this, he would undermine his own authority, and in retrospect call into question the standing of the Buddha, who did not follow the scientific method, and thus, whose teachings were never verified by other scientists.</p>
<p>Science is not absolute truth and for all practical purposes its endeavors are beyond the ability of non-scientists to fathom, or verify, and thus, its assertions must be accepted on belief.</p>
 13992: <p>Science is <em>not</em> a religion, it is a method. Science does not &quot;preach&quot;, has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.</p>
<p>In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.</li>
<li>Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.</li>
<li>Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.</li>
<li>Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.</li>
<li>Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.</li>
<li>Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.</li>
<li>Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.</li>
<li>But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms &amp; particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific
investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact
emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And
suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist
theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the
scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama</p>
</blockquote>
