Obervation->Hypothesis->Experiment->Conclusion/Analysis->Repeat
This is, in it's simplest form, the scientific method. Scientific Method. A method is a way to do something or a way of going about doing something. What are we doing in science by using the scientific method? We are exploring and finding truth. Finding truth about how things in this existence work. How things really are; that is our main concern in science. So, how did things get so inverted and distorted so that rather than truth our goal towards which we strive is not the purpose of the method; truth, but is the method itself. Several New Atheists (R. Dawkins for example) will talk about our commitment to methodological naturalism. Why? Why does this commitment exist? From what evidence of the truth of physicalism and naturalism, does this commitment to the scientific method as a means to discover all truth come? None. There is none. We have chosen to vacuously commit ourselves, as a culture, to the means rather than the end that the means exists for! Why don't we as a culture strive for truth? And if we find that there could exist things in this world that are outside the physical, that there could be things that analysis of the physical and the scientific method cannot explain, then why should we be so closed off to that possibility? What a dead world this is, if all our emotions: happiness, sadness, excitement, disappointment, joy, surprise, and all social interaction are nothing but molecular interactions in our brain.
If all the glory of our humanity and our being is to be found in these chemical reactions occurring inside of us, then what is there to worship but ourselves? (everyone worships something/someone...different argument for a different day) Truly, the reason we, as a culture, are in love with and commit to methodological naturalism, and the means rather than the end is because it gives us a reason to worship ourselves...because if we didn't adhere to these things, then their surely wouldn't be a reason to put ourselves high up on a pedestal, and since we worship ourselves anyway, regardless...we might as well falsely justify it by rationalizing it with a false assumption, right?
Harry G. Frankfurt effectively defines bullshit as; the disregard for truth. I leave you with a quote from his book called On Bullshit:
It is Just this lack of connection to a concern with truth -- this indifference to how things really are -- that I regard as the essence of bullshit...
The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "anti-realist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.
