@Gaiana818 Humans have a strong need to see patterns and make associations. It was a survival advantage on the savannah to be able to make those associations in an overdetermined manner because assuming something to be so may save your life and being wrong about it won't tend to kill you.

So sure it exists in all humans. The question is whether it leads to correct deductions and associations in most modern contexts or not. I submit that it tends to be wrong and must be countered. If only we had a proven system for doing that -- oh, wait! we do! It's called the scientific method!

@Gaiana818 The SM is not the only way, it is just the best way we know of. I am open to hearing of a better way.

I'm also aware that there is applied science (technology) that is not serving us well, but that does nothing to invalidate the science itself. And bear in mind I'm talking about science that's not captive to corporate or corrupt government influences -- that would be pseudoscience.

So yes, I reject a lot of processed / factory grown food but in doing so I do not wrongly reject valid science and intelligently applied science.

But now we are getting far afield of so-called "sacred geometry". The point there is that there is only geometry, and interesting applications thereof. Religion is always misappropriating things from science; it has to, as religion never invents or innovates due to its basis in the failed epistemology of religious faith. It can only claim to be the inventor and protector of things that it has nothing to do with.

@Gaiana818 Science is based upon a methodology called the Scientific Method. Correctly practiced, its only concern is facts and evidence and experimental results. That it can be perverted or have problems (e.g., with the peer review process) doesn't make it less useful, anymore than the fact that not engaging in confirmation bias isn't a useful concept just because people are so strongly prone to do so.

And no, science is not a religion. Religious faith is the acceptance of asserted truth without requiring that it be substantiated. The scientific method is the exact opposite of that. Granted, religious faith and the SM are the underlying epistemology, not religion and science themselves. But the point is that religion and science cannot be the same when the underlying epistemologies are not only not the same, they are diametrically opposed.

@Gaiana818 No scientific theory since the advent of the modern SM around the time of Newton has been overturned once established. A couple have been extended to edge cases, but that's about it. Hypotheses have been invalidated more often than not, but that's how it's supposed to work. Perhaps you don't understand how the system actually works and why it is designed as it is, but that's not my issue, it's yours. Every time the popular press conflates association with cause, that is not science making a wrongful statement of fact. It is just "journalists" chasing eyeballs.

@Gaiana818 You are just describing progressive discovery of the underlying structure of nature. Are you suggesting that atomic particles, atoms, molecules or cells are invented out of whole cloth?

You are also describing philosophical concerns about applied science which have to do with how science is used, not whether it's the best known valid system for discovery. We can have a meaningful discussion about the misuse of scientific knowledge and you'd be surprised at how much we agree on. But the underlying issue for me is whether the approach of science is epistemologically valid or not ... and whether the theory of knowledge used by religion and mysticism is epistemologically valid or not.

@Gaiana818 I know that's what you're saying. Unfortunately what the SM actually is, is an investigatory system specifically designed to control for human bias.

@Gaiana818 Not perfectly, but a systematic effort is better than throwing up your hands and giving up. Isn't it human bias to want ourselves to be immortal or for there to be a kindly deity having us in its back pocket? Isn't it human bias to see agency and significance where it doesn't exist?

@Gaiana818 Science is designed up front to be self-correcting when new information is available. That is a feature, not a bug. That some people do not understand that scientific consensus is subject to refinement and correction, but are surprised by it, is their problem.

However since the late 18th century, 100% of the things science has corrected have been things other than its established explanatory frameworks (scientific theories). It has merely discarded disproven hypotheses and provided additional detail to theories. We still use Newton's celestial mechanics, it's fine for most purposes; but we use general relativity and quantum electrodynamics to extend Newtonian physics to very large and very small scales.

Since you are not pleased that science is capable of being wrong (and admitting it, and adapting to new information), you must have found something that's never wrong. What might that be?

@Gaiana818 I'm older than you and was taught about subatomic particles in elementary school. Because they were discovered well before either of us were born. Electrons were identified in 1897, and most of the other particles were on the books by the 1930s. Either whoever told you atoms were the fundamental particles didn't know what they were talking about, or you misunderstood them.