the ultimate goal of thought is to determine what we should do next — T Clark

Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?' — Lao Tzu

Good post. — T Clark

Muhalo.

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum. — T Clark

Muhalo, you too, for as they say, you never step into the same river twice.
Maybe that can be an 8th principle of the tuna.

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit? — Unenlightened

What channel is that on?

:up: Damn — schopenhauer1

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources. — schopenhauer1

As T said:

The most earth-shattering knowledge seems to come from sources that didn't seem all that useful in the beginning. — T Clark

Why isn't there a special page for solipsists? — alan1000

I found one.
Click the "You" tab.
Far as I can tell, only I can post there.

There are no absolutes; I’m absolutely certain of it. — Mikie

There is an absolute.
But I don't know anything about it.

Thanks I'm not sure where to go from there.

Well sexual relations are in demand and thus can act as a commodity. Trading in that commodity can thus constitute a business. Referring to the business as a whole would make it an industry. — LuckyR

I'm not sure if that means sex is an institution or that sex can be viewed from the perspective of institutions.

Is sex "work"?
Is sex "an industry"? — BC

Sex necessarily involves work from at least one participant.
Why would sex be an industry? You mean sex for money? If so, how could it not be an industry?

Science is a method, an approach, of studying a subject.
Its not a subject or a tradition.
To claim any field or tradition is the sole possessor of the ability to establish facts, is cult-like thinking.

If condemnation has no significant effect, what does? I wish I knew. Don't we all? — BC

Daryl Davis, a black musician, appears to have an approach that works for him. I've read that he convinced 200 KKK members to disrobe, one by one, through befriending them. I wonder how much of that is due to the power of music.

The other response would adhere to the technical definitions and say an actual plutocracy is only a political system in which the wealthy rule by the way the system is formally defined — GRWelsh

As far as I know the word 'plutocracy' does not refer to a formal system of government, which may be why you nor I know of any examples of formal plutocracies in the present or in history.
Except for the richest folk, who would willingly, consciously, support a formal plutocracy? The richest would have to convince people that wealth is an indicator of wisdom and virtue, wouldn't they?

On the psychological layer of life, I see humanity at large as controlled by fear, which manifest as "flight", submitting to authorities, or as "fight", seeking to dominate or be the authority.

What we have around the world appears to be a plutocracy.
The rich control the governments in every nation, don't they?
The middle and lower classes, at best get to decide which rich people get the power.

Religion is also governed by the rich.

If we would all just follow the money whenever a political discussion came up, it could save a lot of time.

I like what George Carlin said, something to the effect
"We have over thirty options for ice cream, but two choices for president".

For me its not "science or .." but rather "science and..." 
I also don't exclude other intellectual or cultural endeavors. — 180 Proof

I see science as the way to study a subject.

If history isn't science, how come we accept certain historical events as facts?

Physical studies has theoretical explanations just like history, politics, psychology, that evolve or are discarded over time, and can not be proven, but more or less work or don't, at explaining what goes on.
As I see it, any weakness pointed out in social science is present in the physical science.

One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction. AND puts together (Relativity and quantum mechanics describe almost all known phenomena)

The other puts together often fictitious events (ex., worldwide flood, miracles) to produce a grand narrative (ex. Jesus died for our sins) — Art48

Both break things down and put things together.
Science does so with external phenomena and "religion" (in its ideal form) does so with internal phenomena.

Your OP can be interpreted as:

Will skepticism replace assumption?
Or:
Will the hard sciences ever replace the soft sciences?

The opposite of science is art.
— HarryHarry

No it isn't. — Banno

Maybe it's a spectrum more than a hard line?

.Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?

The opposite of science is art.
Religion is one form of art.

The science of knowledge vs the art of intuition.

One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction.
The other puts together. Induction. Often narrative.

Both suffer when they are not skeptical or imaginative.

Then ideas fossilize into institutions, losing the creative spark and curios spirit, becoming daycare institutions for adult children.

I would rather ask, "How do I become a free thinker?".
I think that is the desire behind the question of science ever replacing religion. Giving up a Big Religion is one thing, but then if we turn to Big Science, have we really overcome our tendency to look for a Big Pappa to spoonfeed us the answers we crave?

I suppose it's a process.
A slow painful process of overcoming self doubt and learned helplessness.

↪HarryHarry Your 'argument' equivocate the word "view", thereby conflating/confusing conception and perception. — 180 Proof

Do you mean I equivocate POV (concept) with viewing (perception)?
How those relate and which one is primary is another difficult question.
On the other hand, the hard problem remains of what objective matter can be independent of conception or perception.
We have examples of matter being conceptualized into apparent existence. We do this in dreams.
How the mind converts mentality into the experience of perceiving objects in 3d space is a metaphysical rather than a physics question. Metaphysics by definition is prior to physics.
Trying to understand the physics of consciousness is a category error, like trying to perceive a number or principle with the senses.
I see it as proceeding like this
Consciousness first, then conception, then the co-arising of perception and objects perceived.
I don't see how objects lead to concepts and concepts to consciousness. Then again I don't see how consciousness creates concepts either. Either view has something popping into existence.

Edit:
A materialist can say that an idealist is equovicating ' things' with perception or conception. An idealist can say that the materialist is confusing the concept of a thing for a thing in itself independent of conception/consciousness.
How do we determine which is making the error?
It's tricky because each argues from a different metaphysics, making any argument circular or appearing like a conflation.

What are some good ontological/logical arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

I try to prove idealism "via negativa" by demonstrating the incoherence of materialism.

Idealism acknowledges that all points of view depend on viewing.
Even materialism is a point of view. Therefore materialism is sub-category of idealism (if that makes sense. Maybe not worded the best way)

It's kind of like the difference between the first person and third person point of view.
When you close your eyes and just focus on your sense of existing that's kind of like the pure subjective first person.
On the other hand, if you open your eyes and look around the world, you're viewing everything from a third person perspective, but this third person POV takes place from the first person perspective. You can't escape the first person and achieve some ultimate transcendent third person objectivity.
If you could view all of existence from the Eye of God, and this God views without any bias, it would still be an experience from the highest view rather than something independent of first personhood.

In a sense idealism isn't a particular point of view but rather the recognition that any and all views involve viewing.

Progress means forward movement toward a destination. I would like to add toward an innately good destination.
Cancer can progress. But cancer progressing is not what we would term "progress" in the valuable sense.

This leads to the question what is the good?
Until we know what the good is, it is pretty ambiguous what is meant by "progress".

Maybe by good we mean general well being.

Has the well being of humanity, all factors considered, improved significantly?

That's probably hard to measure scientifically. Science tends to hyper focus on individual factors at the exclusion of other factors, giving one sided pictures.

I would compare comparing life for the average person 500 years in the past vs now as like comparing a poor person to rich person. Both sides have unique challenges.
Consider Rome in it's earlier days vs when it fell. Was the progression of Rome toward it's downfall?

Maybe progress is like fruit. Fruit matures to it's peak and then progresses toward decay.

There might not be such a thing as endless progress. And even if you achieve full potential, after that comes the fall.

I tend to think the laws of nature keep life in balance to where it never really fundamentally changes toward greater or lesser good.
It seems a human vanity and fantasy that we can somehow organize our collective nature in such a way to tip the scales toward permanent imbalance towards the good.

. Judaism is an iteration of theism. — Baden

This would mean that Judaism sprang from a belief in God. But not everyone who believes in God makes an ideology out of it
It could be that the tendency to create or follow ideologies has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in gods, since we see both believers and non believers with and without ideologies.

An atheist simply lacks a theistic worldview. S/he might, however, have a 'Platonic worldview' or 'Buddhistic worldview' or 'animistic worldview' ... Just as bald is not a hair color, atheism is not a belief about g/G (color) but about theism (hair). — 180 Proof

Theists can also have a Platonic, Buddhist, or animistic world view.
Some would say unless you subscribe to classical theism, you are an atheist. But then what do you call someone who claims to know or believe in God but rejects religion?

atheistic worldview
— T Clark
There's no such squared circle — 180 Proof

A theist view at the minimal end is that God is a sensible proposition, and at the maximum end that God is the necessary foundation of all things.

An atheist view is at the minimum end predicated on a view of things where God doesn't appear to be necessary to explain anything, and at the maximum end that God is an absurd impossibility.

At the very least
God is not necessary to explain anything
And
God is the foundation of all things

Are different (world?) views.
I don't know what a worldview is apart from a view.
Aren't all views views of the world?

What is the root of all philosophy? — Bret bernhoft

The recognition of and resultant desire to resolve bewilderment and sorrow at their psychological origin

When the experiment is done, the results are not nice. Such is what we are. — unenlightened

Do you think the experiment would go the same in the East?
In a small rural village or tribal community?

I hope the experiment reflects the depravity modern western high wealth materialistic society, and not humanity generally, for all time.

But maybe your conclusion is based off of many other examples in history.