"Scientists are a few, elite people who take the trouble to try to understand the very difficult. Hence you should not expect the masses to understand what you understand."
They are a relatively small group. I don't think that everyone can understand everything, but I'm pretty sure that MOST people (who are not retarded) are capable of understanding MOST things. Moreover, for a democracy to work ... for an advanced technical society to work ... science MUST be imparted.
My feeling is that people tend to do what is easiest, taking the path of least resistance in most cases.
"2. Many people here are highly competive, tearing into any other people's ideas with the shout "defend yourself". Might work well in the scientific community, doesn't work well in the rest of the world. Hence: you turn off the masses with your people skills. Calling others idiots will never market an idea."
Well, you're kinda right here. "You're an idiot" is not an argument. Not surprisingly, talking about science is a lot easier than practicing it. I highly recommend a book to you - by Daniel Boorstin called "The Discoverers." Most people - including some practicing 'scientists' and many of science's vocal proponents have a sort of comic-book understanding of it. One thing a person can do to get a quick label of dunce is make a firm statement of something in an area where he clearly hasn't done his homework. Unfortunatley, it's not obvious that there are many people on gogo who could make such a determination.
"3. I would postulate that science alone does not fill the needs of most people. Here in the US, to a lesser extent in Europe, but also to a great extend in third world countries, religion fills a need in many people's lives."
I agree with you. This is a HUGE cry from saying that religion is true. I've always considered that the question "is religion necessary" is the wrong question posed by exremist atheists who are more interested in making their opinions sound scientific than in solving problems. Science alone is unfulfilling to most people. But it's not just the fault of scientists. Understanding science takes some effort and focus - a lot more than which most people are willing to submit themselves. I've realized that for a long time, but it's only been in the last few years that I've come to undrestand exactly how dire the consequences might be.
"4. I would futher suggest that for some of you, your strict adherance to an only science belief resembles a form of religion, much as Communisum, though without a god, likewise used many of the forms of religion including hymns. Religion is a way of looking at life, a pholosiphy, a way of living. There are many religions in the world that do not believe in a supreme god."
I ALMOST agree with this. For some people, science is like a religion. This is nothing new. Many people who followed science in history were convinced that they were "in the know" and rationally justified, but were dismally mistaken.
Science doesn't say anything about god. Science CAN'T say anything about any supernatural god. I personally consider the idea of god to be asinine - but that's a philosophical opinion, not a scientific one. I think one area where scientists have really failed is in conveying a serious appreciation of it to the masses. Again, I strongly encourage you to slowly and carefully read "The Discoverers." But this is a far cry from saying that science is on the wrong track or that science should consider explanations other than natural for phenomena.
If there are supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, science is incapable of addressing them.
