Into the Night
Verified User
Science is defined by philosophy, LeftNut. Philosophy is not itself science.
More bad news for the left
- Thread starter Land Barge
- Start date
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Not what you said, RightNut.
No, science is not defined by philosophy, though they are deeply interconnected; philosophy historically includes science as a "natural philosophy" and asks foundational questions about it, while science is a more recent, distinct field focusing on empirical observation and testable predictions. Philosophy provides the broader framework for science by raising questions about knowledge (epistemology), reality (metaphysics), and values (ethics), which guide scientific inquiry and interpretation of its results.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
It all means "bad thing".
Land Barge
Verified User
I’m assuming you mean my opinion.
It’s post #8.
Of course not. The article explains why. It’s behind a paywall so I’ll try to explain.
First, here is the research:
Progressives have been more and more pessimistic about the future, conservatives, more optimistic .
Progressives tend to incur much higher student loans for useless college degrees obtained from private liberal arts schools and consequently delay indefinitely starting a family or never have one.
Conservatives tend towards STEM degrees or trade schools so they start earning and contributing to society earlier.
There are...
I don't know why I try to educate one as ignorant and obtuse as you.
You made a fool of yourself with your ignorance. Learn from it and move on.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I'll accept that yes you don't know.
Then why do you ignorantly keep claiming that it does? You've really exposed your lack of education and inability to comprehend basic concepts here.
Reread the AI response you posted - science is a methodology - it does not and cannot "say" anything. It is simply the best method we currently have for PEOPLE to discover answers to complex questions.
If you seek to attribute sentience to inanimate objects, why not books? Have you read a book? Do books say things, or is it the author using the book as a medium? Do you have the intellect to grasp the difference?
You demand that you continue to make a fool of yourself by posting abject ignorance.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge; stupidity is the inability or refusal to learn.
You have wandered into stupidity now.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Pick pick pick.
You just can't admit when you're wrong.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You haven't explained how I am wrong. All you did was picking on the usage of the word "say".
It provides results that can be predicted and repeated. It furnishes everything we know about a subject.. What it does is refine its theories.
LichGold
Verified User
Question? Not quite correct. As science gets more info through experimentation, it is folded into the existing theories. That modifies the theory. It does not throw it out. The corners on theories get chamfered as time goes by. It is reshaped but super-rarely dismissed. Question implies they do not accept theories as true. That is wrong. They work perfectly well in science and life.
LichGold
Verified User
Nonsense, it's mostly all subjective to the angle of bent space. Just as with pressure, elements behave differently one one planet as they do on another. Chemical reaction speeds etc. and the thing of that is, gravity isn't uniform on earth. Mountains have their own gravitational fields. science is not a theism but you treat it like it is anyway, and when you do, you break with science and with religion. You're a pan-paradigm abomination and that's the only definition you've ever aspired to become. When it's convenient, you throw anything to the wind. You're literally dedicated to the single moral principle of hypocrisy itself.
This is all anyone can say in your defense.
Last edited:
That made no sense. It is predicated on math, scientific data, experimentation results and scientific knowledge. Nobody treats science as a theism. That shows the opposite. The fact is , it is refined by the accumulation of evidence .