I personaly dont think that relying on predictions or what is said to be predictions of the mayan calendar made by a civilization of people that used to lop heads off and rip out the hearts of living people to appease their gods so that the sun would rise again is a topic of science.
maybe they just ran out of room for 2012 and decided to wait till then to make a new calendar.
Or maybe there is evidence that the Maya that crafted the calendar were the predecessors of the ones who used to lop heads off and inhabited their cities, and the calendar is based on mathematical calculations of celestial position and its effects on conscious evolution. But then if you don't know about something the unknown aint science until it becomes known.
Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?
of course , science is data gathering and experimentation
it is the acquisition of knowledge , no two people have the exact same beliefs , although two people can believe in some of the same things you cannot include beliefs , prophesy or any unproven theory into the knowledge we call science.
But belief does inhibit the ability to discern data according to how data is identified. If you suppose only certain things are real all other suppositions remain unreal until accepted as real.
Take the story of the pap smear for example. George Papanicolaou brought his idea of taking cell samples from the tissues of the cervix to test for cancer. His peers (peer review in action) laughed him out of the medical symposium he was attending. His peers believed him to be delusional. Yet today his pap test is primary for the screening of cervical cancer.
Humans by default subconsciously allow their feelings and beliefs to distract themselves from what is available and standing right in front of them. Because science is narrow it blinds itself of possibility as it tightens the spaces between the walls of the box.
Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics?
its not science or politics , its a discussion.
Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss.
Dare I ask is discussion unscientific??
"Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?"
The subject of science is already narrow, but you're apparently not aware of what's happened to actual science since the enlightenment. It's not anyone else's responsibility to tell you what is or what is not science.
This is the first time you actually got it right. The Truth never needs defense and it remains the truth regardless of personal beliefs and the wasted energy of defending against forces that do not actually know the truth.
If you actually did homework on the subject before trying to peddle your atrophied religion as science, you might know this.
You still have not identified what real science is nor have you even remotely touched on anything real about spiritual sciences. So to quote you. "Assertions are not proof."
But religionists typically don't care about this. Much easier to try to bask in the perceived glory of real science.
If we change the word religionists to scientists in the above statement. We have a statement that is relatively equal.
Just for clarification, I don't happen to be a Religionist, tho I do understand religion as it applies to spiritual beliefs, and, that system of beliefs as it also also applies to the relative sciences. The Truth stands independent of the unseen and un-experienced as well as any beliefs.
One would have to rise above the subconscious belief systems to actually experience Truth and that is the foundation for the exploration of spiritual science.
Everything is equal since everything can be traced to the same origin. Trouble is relative science, influenced by the personal ideals and beliefs, can't make it
all fit, yet.
By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?
