Update

science.md

@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** s
 
 **Never confuse trusting science with trusting scientists** (especially in [capitalism](capitalism.md) and other dystopias), the latter is literally faith ([soyence](soyence.md)), no different from blindly trusting religious preachers and political propaganda, the former means only trusting that which you yourself can test and verify at home and therefore having real confidence. We are not saying that you should never trust a scientist, only that you should know doing so is just pure relying on someone's word, which in today's society you often cannot afford to do. Also do NOT confuse or equate science with [academia](academia.md). As with everything, under capitalism academia has become rotten to the core, research is motivated by profit and what's produced is mostly utter bullshit shat out by wannabe [PhD](phd.md)s who need to mass produce "something" as a part of the crazy academia publish-or-perish game. As with everything in capitalism, the closer you look, the more corruption you find. So wait, **can we just trust nothing researched by someone else?** It's not so simple: for starters just realize that trusting "the big science" nowadays with anything important (e.g. one's health) is just like entrusting a random stranger in the street something that's valuable to you (actually it's worse because unlike a stranger, entities such as [corporations](corporation.md) have absolutely no emotion and conscience) -- can you do that? Well, sometimes yes, mostly it's probably a great risk, and generally you want to avoid having to do it. In the past things were better, so you can generally trust "science" that was done much further in the past, i.e. facts you find in old encyclopedias are generally more trustworthy than facts you find on today's internet. [LRS](lrs.md) would like to establish society in which "big science" would be trustworthy again; until we succeed though, you have to keep distrust in soyence.
 
+**Is science compatible with [religion](religion.md)?** Yes, of course, because they're two perfectly separate things, one cannot examine the subject of the other, but perhaps we should rather be talking about faith in the supernatural or about spiritual beliefs, as religion oftentimes comes hand in hand with [politics](politics.md) and politics is that which can establish artificial incompatibility of rationality and spirituality. And in similar manner the "cult of science" -- or [soyence](soyence.md) -- is likewise a political construct that will create the illusion of incompatibility, a false belief that one has to choose either team A or team B. But in their purest forms, despite any [atheist](atheism.md)'s claims, nothing prevents rationality and spirituality from coexisting peacefully, and we often see great scientists being "religious", spiritual or believing in higher power.
+
 ## See Also
 
 - [knowability](knowability.md)