the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities. By stripping ecclesiastical authority of its credibility on factual matters, they cast doubt on its claims to certitude in matters of morality.

The reason I asked how the OP thinks that people "submit" to science is that I don't believe the average person has much interest in, or understanding of, science; so I am struggling to make sense of the idea that they are somehow mysteriously in submission to it. — John

You would do well to study philosophy of science, particularly Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. It's actually quite a difficult subject to get a grip on so is one of those subjects better studied through a course if at all possible. I did several undergraduate units on it and although I didn't understand its significance at the time, it was in incredibly helpful and useful discipline in my opinion... — Wayfarer

As regards postmodernism - there really is no such thing. It's not a school of thought or philosophy as such. There is a lot of crap spoken by it and about it, but there are also some very valuable insights to be gleaned from various post-modernist perspectives. An older anthology but useful one is http://a.co/gQUipBf — Wayfarer

In what way do you think people "submit" to science: in other words, what is the nature of that submission? What would be an alternative to the so-called scientific method, when it comes to understanding the empirical world as it is observed? — John

already said that I have studied all of that on my own. Did you not read my post? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

All material presented in formal education is unquestioningly taken as authoritative and supreme. "This is what other people have thought. This is what other people have concluded. But it is up to you--it is your responsibility--to decide for yourself what is true/real" is never part of the process, especially with respect to "science". Science is king! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It sounds like you had some poor teachers, unfortunately.

I was taught from the beginning--well, or at least since Jr. High School, that (a) empirical claims are not provable, and (b) a hallmark of science is that all claims must be open to revision in the face of new empirical evidence or new interpretations of old empirical evidence. And we were taught science partially from a historical perspective that emphasized controversies, different views, etc. and the way that experimentation led to some views being discarded, where fallibilism was stressed.

And this was at public schools in the middle of ghettos (pro-integration busing) in South Florida — Terrapin Station

What sort of school did you go to? Public/private? In what country? — Terrapin Station

What sort of school did you go to? Public/private? In what country? — Terrapin Station

Climate change is a very good example of the misuse of the word "science". The field consists of a vast body of material built upon unscientific premises, but it is referred to as science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those who haven't studied particular sciences sufficiently (and I would say that takes a great deal of study today due to the vast expansion of scientific fields) are not in a suitable position to judge as to what is true or not true in those fields. — John

Science is all there is when one needs to be rational. There is nothing else in that situation, by definition. — Jake Tarragon

So today the word "science" is often attached to many things which aren't science, like speculative theory, and statistical analysis, such that just thinking of certain reports as "science" inclines one to believe that they must be true. — Metaphysician Undercover

I remember in secondary school, 7th grade through graduating from high school, the way it felt as nearly everybody--students, parents, teachers, administrators--uncritically presented and accepted "science" as authoritative, supremely important, and indispensable. There was nothing in people's attitudes or the material presented about any doubts, limitations, criticisms, shortcomings, etc. with respect to science. There was never any hint of any such skepticism in my two years of college either. I had to actively on my own in recent years search for and find thinking that is critical of science and its place in history, society, etc. Thomas Kuhn. Postmodern theorists. Critics of scientism. Etc.

I always took science, like everything else, as what people say and think. The way that other people presented it and took it as gospel made me roll my eyes.

And my entire life I have lived and studied in a state that is supposedly highly sympathetic with the irrational and non-scientific (Christian fundamentalism, creation science, etc.). Go figure.

Maybe it is true. Maybe the United States of America is a bunch of anti-intellectual dittoheads churned out by mediocre schools. But my experience tells me that science in the U.S. is a cause, not a victim, of this.

Here is the real irony: nothing in the intellectual landscape is maligned and scapegoated more than "postmodernism" (predictably, "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" were even blamed for Donald Trump's victory last November). Yet, while we lament the population's individual and collective lack of critical thinking skills it is postmodern theorists who provide most of an otherwise non-existent body of criticism of a tradition and institution, science, that everybody else seems to blindly submit to. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think that where the biggest problem lies is in the misuse of the word "science". Science has been so successful, it has a reputation of being nearly infallible. So today the word "science" is often attached to many things which aren't science, like speculative theory, and statistical analysis, such that just thinking of certain reports as "science" inclines one to believe that they must be true. This is the deceptive power of the misuse of words, the power of suggestion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I remember sitting in science and math classes quietly skeptical of what was being presented to me and accepted by everybody else involved as airtight thinking. If it was airtight, why was I seeing red flags?

It is not just science and math. All material presented in formal education is unquestioningly taken as authoritative and supreme. "This is what other people have thought. This is what other people have concluded. But it is up to you--it is your responsibility--to decide for yourself what is true/real" is never part of the process, especially with respect to "science". Science is king! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You would do well to study philosophy of science, particularly Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. It's actually quite a difficult subject to get a grip on so is one of those subjects better studied through a course if at all possible. — Wayfarer

Those who haven't studied particular sciences sufficiently (and I would say that takes a great deal of study today due to the vast expansion of scientific fields) are not in a suitable position to judge as to what is true or not true in those fields. — John

You don't need to understand the intricacies of any particular scientific discipline to have a good idea of the state of knowledge and consensus of opinions among those doing the work. Again, you need a good basic understanding of scientific principles. You also need curiosity and interest. — T Clark

In any case, my main point of contention is with the idea that science and religion are at loggerheads. — John