Politics And Religion

[Traveler]

The concept of science is not complicated. In reality science is perhaps the most simple of human studies.

The first principle of science is experimentation or if you will – controlled observation. The method of science is to describe in as much detail as possible the experiment or what is being observed.

The second principle of science is gathering and recording data. Cataloging what was observed. Have I lost anyone? Are these difficult concepts? Is there someone reading this that could not perform an experiment and record the results? I hope not.

The reason that the experiment and data are recorded is so that you or anyone could come along and perform the same experiment and walla! Either there is agreement or disagreement and the data and information to settle any disagreements. The only time there is disagreement is when the experiment and data are not conclusive allowing for more than one possible conclusion.

This brings me to the third principle of science – analyzing data. So there you go – science – the experiment – the gathering of data – and analyzing the data.

Pseudo science takes none of this into account and instead begins with a conclusion and then starts finding data that can be analyzed to support the conclusion disregarding all other data and experiments. In essence, pseudo science is opinion.

Often religion and politics are practiced as a pseudo science; based on nothing but opinion and any data that can be found to support the conclusion to the exclusion of all other data and experiments. Instead of performing experiments and considering data – expert opinion (expert opinion defined as opinion that is agreeable to the conclusion) is sought for and quoted. Research becomes looking up the opinions of experts. So ask yourself – Does your expert perform experiments, gather and analyze as much data as possible or do they seek other selected experts for opinions and exclude data that does not support their conclusion. And can you duplicate their data?

Let me give one example: I was attending a symposium (prior to 1993) on the Dead Sea Scrolls and was listening to the eminent Dr (Rev.) Tom Newman, retired chair of Archeology at Harvard Univ. When he asked for questions: I asked – Why does everybody say that Qumran was exclusively Essen and that Masada was not Essen when studies of graphology indicate that some of the same scribes of Qumran were also at Masada? He answered that we do not have all the answers just our best guesses. Afterwards Rev. Newman sought me out and told me that the official line is that Qumran were Essen but at the same time he and others agree that such was not really the case – but that if I was to quote him he would deny it. We became friends and I use to e-mail him until he passed. The point here is that the experts all agree – The Dead Sea Scrolls came for a settlement of Essens and there is not one shred of evidence to support the notion besides the consensus of expert opinion. There is no data.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Why does most of the religious (Christians and Jews) want the Dead Sea Scrolls to be Essen?

The reason is because of what the settlement by the Dead Sea was anciently called. The name of the place was Damascus. That is an interesting name for a place as it plays out in ancient history and if Damascus was not Essen then history is not at all what we thought it was and we have copies of the scriptures used by Jews at the very time of Christ and we have a very interesting look into the cult to which the Apostle Paul joined following his conversion to Jesus as the Messiah. It also means that traditional notions of Jews and Christians have evolved into something very different in our day – especially in regards to Torah and Biblical canon.

The Traveler