S2S
I think you have misunderstood my point. I was trying to respond to your statement that science can be, or is, "unbiased". I do not believe that this can be so because the discipline of science is man made and orchestrated by man. I also further tried to emphasis that tools, systems and theories, even those used by science, are also biased by design. The reason being that all these items have a purpose, and accordingly have been designed to fulfill that purpose, even if some fail at that miserably.
Wiki defines tool as:
"A tool is a device that can be used to produce an item or achieve a task, but that is not consumed in the process. Informally the word is also used to describe a procedure or process with a specific purpose."
A hammer's purpose is to hit nails into timber etc. A microscope's purpose is to magnify light to make visible the invisible. A Gravity Probe is used to measure gravity, a radio telescope to measure cosmic radiation. They are all designed and constructed to serve a purpose.
The purpose is not a derivative of science, but of human desire.
Wiki defines "purpose" as:
"Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken,[1] or of an object being brought into use or existence, whether or not the purpose was a primary or secondary effect. It is possible that an intentional act may have multiple and hierarchisated purposes, only some of which is primary intentions while the remainder are secondary (or tertiary or more) intentions.
For example, the introduction of a gene into a species of rice may have the primary intention of providing resistance to disease and a secondary intention of reducing nutritional value. The diminished nutritional value, though perhaps regrettable, would be a secondary intention in that it is a known effect willingly accepted.
This would also address the tertiary effects, like the discovery of carbon nanotubes etc, by pursuing primary purpose. They are still apart of the same principle and their discovery provokes the same human response; "what are they good for, what is their purpose," and the intention "what can we create out of them to fulfill a purpose?"
Wiki further defines "desire" as:
"In philosophy, desire has been identified as a philosophical problem since Antiquity. In Plato's The Republic, Socrates argues that individual desires must be postponed in the name of the higher ideal.
In Aristotle's De Anima the soul is seen to be involved in motion, because animals desire things and in their desire, they acquire locomotion. Aristotle argued that desire is implicated in animal interactions and the propensity of animals to motion. But Aristotle acknowledges that desire cannot account for all purposive movement towards a goal. He brackets the problem by positing that perhaps reason, in conjunction with desire and by way of the imagination, makes it possible for one to apprehend an object of desire, to see it as desirable. In this way reason and desire work together to determine what is a "good" object of desire."
A brief history on the definition of Science and it's origin from wiki:
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, "science" and "philosophy", were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, "natural philosophy" (which is today called "natural science") had begun to be considered separately from "philosophy" in general.[6][7] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, science is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."
It would seem that desire, imagination, philosophy, science, reason and purpose are intricately linked.
They all are a part of human action and only function in unison. Science is not as impendant as one would be lead to think. To be unbiased by humans it would have to be not created by humans.
My wording on the creation statement was carefully chosen:
"Man does not desire to intentionally create without purpose."
The arts are not immune to this desire, in fact one could argue they are the ultimate expression of desire. Paintings, music and acting etc represent sometimes even desperate longing for achieving purpose, because of a underlying desire. The creation of love stories from Shakespeare, are full of these desires, which naturally result in pro-creation, as are even stories from Star Trek, in which the desire to achieve a purpose, ie explore space, has even formulated the basis for much real-life technological innovation, from teleportation to the humble mobile phone.
Human imagination seems to know no bounds. Their creativity is only limited by the tools available at the time. Tools created for a previous purpose, that have become superseded by the desire of creating something new, with the intention of fulfilling a new purpose.
Hence my question:
"How big is the Large Haldron Collider/MMCC experiment to prove the opposite exists?"
It would seem that there is no desire to seek such a purpose and likewsie such a "tool" does not exist.
On your statement about truth:
"You are talking again about 'truth'. This word does not exist in science."
Maybe you are right that the "truth" doesn't exist for science, but does the truth exist regardless? ie Does the physical world function in a certain predetermined way? If so, is the purpose of science to seek the truth, or just another theory that can be dis-proven? What is the value of such a theory then? And why ever base a decision on such a theory in the first place? ie MMCC and CT?? I'm sure there are extra-terrestrials even would consider this "insanity".
Sorry for all the copy pasting and long post...it's hard to say in just a few words, and I know you prefer "peer reviewed" sources over my feeble arguments and conclusions!