i like both of them. unlike the earlier guys - their theories about science were plain stupid. lol, i once made the blunder to say that to a girl whose master thesis was on Witgenstein! wow that was hot! i`d recommend to the timber philosophers here to do some reading instead of discovering the hot water again. they`ll glimpse on depths it is difficult to attain by scratching your tongue on a forum. once upon a time I would too. but such is the punishment I have chosen for myself
I figured the meaning behind your reference to 'timber philosopher' would be something conceited like this.
Grobar, I invite you to validate science without using science. That should keep you quiet for awhile. What this proves is that you, as gandhi said, have to "borrow from science to validate science." How did science come to exist if it needed itself to validate itself? Religion and science are more alike than you would think. -both have their own standards of "truth" -both have their own "experts" -both borrow from themselves to validate themselves So, in spite of all the authority you think comes with your position in academia, it is actually just "your word against theirs." What I see is two sides arguing: Religious person: I'm the expert because I said so. Scientific person: No, I'm the expert because I said so. It seems that you can sometimes be cocky given your position in your field, but this only shows how entrenched you are in the sciences. You are as self-promoting as, say, a bishop is.
According to this, i can state that Rubberboy and Waterwoman exist. I can't prove it, but noone can disprove that either. That's why i hate religion. They're based in the impossibility of proofs to not be denied. Simply absurd
No. You can see an apple falling from a tree, and that's a scientific fact. You can read that Lazarus was dead and walked as Jesus told him to. Can you prove that? Anyone can? that's my point
In fact you can state precisely that. I mean it is unlikely you'd be correct and I'd probably think Broz has now lost it completely but who knows ...
Actually Rubberboy is my next door neighbour. He, I, Waterwoman and Easterbunny play poker from time to time.
That's why they never come to my house anymore? Bastards.... I'll have to call pencilgirl (not exec's sister ) to play chess...
he mistakes. science comes from obective practical experience. religion comes from subjective mental experience. i prefer first one.
To observe and record is the scientific method. It can be done with innocent intent, not even THINKING about science, one is forced to use scientific method if one does not wish one's crops to fail VERY OFTEN. No amount of religion will permit planting seeds during the wrong season. It is tracking animals for the hunt and determining how many phases of the moon are we into before we can plow and plant seeds. Religion fills in the spaces. Plant seeds in the third full moon. Why? because each generation before has, through trial and error, found that moon is the best in which to plant. Watch as some blight eats all your crops? Either it is explanable by science, if you have the data or are willing to gather it, or, if there is no data, then you can always say, "the gods did it." Religion cannot argue effectively. It is beyond that - or before that. Religion will NOT stand argument else it would fail, simple. It is that simple. People say religion and science are incompatable. THAT IS NOT TRUE. What is incompatable are argument and "fact." Science can exist happily without facts. Religion absolutely cannot remain in a world where argument is always acceptable and facts are ethereal. You cannot eat rocks. And NOT because God says you can't. You can't eat rocks because of: [insert theory here - later, maybe some day, change theory here - you still won't be eating any rocks]
relligion isn't about trust, or logic, or proofs it's about making you feel better, if you can't do it otherwise thank god I can...
