Update

science.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
 
 **Science is not almighty** as brainwashed internet [euphoric](atheism.md) kids like to think, that's a completely false idea fed to them by the overlords who abuse "science" ([soyence](soyence.md)) for control of the masses, as religion was and is still used -- soyence is the new religion [nowadays](21st_century.md). Yes, (true) science is great, it is an awesome tool, but it is just that -- a tool, usable for SOME tasks, not a [silver bullet](silver_bullet.md) that could be used for everything. What can be discovered by science is in fact quite limited, exactly because it purposefully LIMITS itself only to accept what CAN be proven and so remains silent about everything else (which however doesn't mean there lies no knowledge or value in the everything else or in other approaches to learning) -- see e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorems that state it is mathematically impossible to really prove validity of mathematics, or the nice compendium of all knowability limitations at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html. For many (if not most) things we deal in life science is either highly impractical (do you need to fund a peer reviewed research to decide what movie you'll watch today?) or absolutely useless (setting one's meaning of life, establishing one's basic moral values, placing completely random bets, deciding to trust or distrust someone while lacking scientifically relevant indicators for either, answering metaphysical questions such as "Why is there ultimately something rather than nothing?", anything that cannot be falsified, if only for practical reasons etc.). So don't be Neil de Grass puppet and stop treating science as your omnipotent pimplord, it's just a hammer useful for bashing some specific nails.
 
-**Science is but one of many tools, a helper, NOT a replacement for everything.** Big science propaganda nowadays tries to push the idea that unless something is proven by science (or what they themselves call "science"), it is invalid; that we should not assume anything unless science proves it. That's not only very stupid but mainly dangerous, it invalidates any and all knowledge not officially approved by the big science police -- in other words it leads to establishing a [totalitarian](totality.md) regime giving a monopoly over truth to the big science. Not even talking about corruption and potential of abuse that we WILL pay for in such case, by relying exclusively on science in everything we immensely cripple our ability to make decisions and throw away all other methods of gaining knowledge. Let us repeat again that not everything can be proven by science and not everything is easy or practically possible to be proven by it. Probably in most situations it is either much more efficient or even the only possible option to rely on knowledge gained in other ways, for example by intuition, educated guess or experience. Most decisions in life are done this way and even if we may get false knowledge this way (just like with science), we can mostly afford the risk and take its consequences, it's usually a good price to pay for being able to make decisions without having to perform rigorous research that will pass the immensely complex big science approval process. It's great if something is (legitimately) proven by science, but until that happens we may, and mostly SHOULD, rely on the next best thing, i.e. knowledge obtained by less reliable methods, e.g. observations of our ancestors regarding [stereotypes](stereotype.md), lore, advice of craftsmen and so on.
+**Science is but one of many tools, a helper, NOT a replacement for everything.** Big science propaganda nowadays tries to push the idea that unless something is proven by science (or what they themselves call "science"), it is invalid; that we should not assume anything unless science proves it. That's not only very stupid but mainly dangerous, it invalidates any and all knowledge not officially approved by the big science police -- in other words it leads to establishing a [totalitarian](totality.md) regime giving a monopoly over truth to the big science. Not even talking about corruption and potential of abuse that we WILL pay for in such case, by relying exclusively on science in everything we immensely cripple our ability to make decisions and throw away all other methods of gaining knowledge. Let us repeat again that not everything can be proven by science and not everything is easy or practically possible to be proven by it. Probably in most situations it is either much more efficient or even the only possible option to rely on knowledge gained in other ways, for example by intuition, educated guess or experience. Most decisions in life are done this way and even if we may get false knowledge this way (just like with science), we can mostly afford the risk and take its consequences, it's usually a good price to pay for being able to make decisions without having to perform rigorous research that will pass the immensely complex big science approval process. It's great if something is (legitimately) proven by science, but until that happens we may, and mostly SHOULD, rely on the next best thing, i.e. knowledge obtained by less reliable methods, e.g. observations of our ancestors regarding [stereotypes](stereotype.md), lore, advice of craftsmen and so on. If there is no scientific proof neither for nor against something, believing what's obvious is probably the best we can do. Science means questioning even common sense, but when science is powerless (or obscured, too expensive or unusable for any other reason), common sense is still superior.
 
 **What should we accept as "legit" science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict, black and white definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing [morality](morality.md)" with [laws](law.md) etc. There are no hard lines between good and evil, fun and boring, useful and useless, bloated and minimal, and so also there is no strict line between science and non-science. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis and can be disagreed on without any issue, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful rational conduct and way of thought. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, without any business and self interest, i.e. [selfless](selflessness.md), also [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, clear and unobscured etc. -- especially stressed should be the idea of many people being able to reproduce, test and verify less retarded science (see also [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md)); e.g. Newton's law of gravitation is less retarded because it can easily be verified by anyone, while the existence of Higgs boson is not. Similarly the line between scientists and non-scientists shouldn't be strict, common people should be able to do basic science, reasoning, experiments, calculations and research of literature, but indeed to arrive at such highly advanced stage would require a very long time, to get very close to [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md).