It seems a strange question to ask whether there is intelligence in scientific knowledge. Let's think about it this way: using scientific standards, can we determine that a scientific article has intelligence? Who knows!? Using scientific methods, we could say that all scientific work has no intelligence! Have you ever imagined this? Wouldn't it be extremely strange for scientific methods to say that scientific methods themselves were not made with intelligence? The scientific method refers to a set of basic rules of procedures that produce scientific knowledge. But would these rules be capable of defining that the rules themselves are produced intelligently? And what would be intelligence? It could be defined as the ability to understand or give an answer or resolution on an objective data. Let's do a practical example. Humans launched satellites Voyager 1 and 2 into space to observe Jupiter, Saturn and their moons. But such satellites would go outside the solar system. And with the idea that they could be found by intelligent beings from another planet, they made gold-plated records with sounds of the earth and the location of the solar system. Let's do the opposite, let's say that another civilization sent a similar satellite, and it was captured by human beings, and acquired the alien disk with sounds from another planet. Using scientific methods, could we say that such a satellite would have been made by an intelligence? According to the current rules of the scientific method, the answer would be no. Organized scientific methods, and based on the dogmatic scientific system, would not define that the satellite had been made by an intelligence, it could only have been made by natural means. So, in this hypothetical situation, would science consider the satellite as something produced by a natural system, not directed? If they actually used the current conceptual mode, the answer would be yes. But like common sense, it would be very strong for scientists to consider that their norms describe the object made by an intelligence. Just so as not to demonstrate clear ignorance of the paradigms of science that transform it into dogmas in some areas. At the foundation of the current scientific method, all things only exist through undirected natural mechanisms. When something by common sense is defined as intelligent, such a thing is broken out of science and taken into the social and psychological system. When something is linked to nature, then it is broken and released into the physical scientific system. Generating the two great dogmas, anything that is not a human being is not social and will be taken care of by physical science, and anything that is a human being will not be taken care of by physical science. A very simple point is, in real science, of everything, is there really a difference? No matter how much we tell ourselves that science is not dogmatic, it is based on extremely dogmatic foundations. And why do such dogmas exist? By the mere principle of every dogma that has existed in history. The conservation of power in the hands of one or a group.
