So...guess I'm the new guy

[Reforged]

Did you miss the definition of intuition or are you just dense? It is instinctual, pure and simple.
Yeah, discovering the methods for making fire, building structures, making clothing. That had nothing to do with moving away from our primitive origins. We could of done without that. Do you ever actually read through your posts before sending them? Because I would be embarrassed to send a retort of that calibre.

"Scientism". Theres that word again. The idea anyone thinks any method universally applicable without having first seen the universe is absurd. Real scientists do not make claims about what they have no information on, they can only speculate and theorize on the unknown until more information is obtained on it. You don't know if science in its current state is applicable to the universe or not and neither do I. Probably not, we don't know everything. If we did science wouldn't be necessary as discoveries would be redundant. We only know it has so far been applicable to every discovery made and every technology produced. It has improved mankind's condition far more than anyone could measure.

You are making a snap judgement that there is something in the universe that has not got a rational, scientific explanation. You can not possibly know that there is and it is arrogant for you to presume you do when mankind as a whole knows so little about the universe it inhabits.

It becomes increasingly obvious with every post you make you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Now once again; give me an example of a metaphysical assumption science makes or retreat. Do not continue to insult the intellect of this forum through brazenly dodging the question.

Wow. I didn't know you were arguing from the grade school dictionary.

Let me clarify my claim so that it fits within your dictionary paradigm. When I referred to intuition, I was referring to man's own mental faculty. Including your definition of intuition but not solely limited to it. We are talking about a priori and a posteriori reasoning as they are processed by the human cognition.

Ie, the human mind.

If I had to choose between the existence of minds but not science, or the existence of science but not minds, I would always go with the former, because the former is greater and naturally leads to science. But science on its own does not lead to minds. Science is just data collection and analysis guided by the mind. It's nothing special or worthy of worship.

Give up your science obsession. It's ridiculous. The human mind is where it's at.

I didn't know you had such a disdain for the English language that you needed to re-appropriate words with your own definition for your own ends.

Why do you think thats even a choice you have to make? It seems to me your projecting your own struggle with your inadequacies onto this forum. Also, where did this even come from? When did instinct become the finer quality of having a mind? Who was even comparing science to the human mind before you unleashed that rather poorly worded bout of verbal diarrhea upon this thread? This is sheer nonsense which your spouting to convolute this discussion with things that have not even entered into it.
Do you honestly think anyone here is stupid enough not to see through that?

First you were claiming science makes metaphysical assumptions and then tried to change the definition of mathematics to fit this. Then you were claiming a quality of base, primitive instinct to be of more import and relevance than a systematic method that has produced more discoveries and more boons to mankind than I could list on this thread. These ideas are preposterous and you have not backed either up with anything other than your own severely biased opinion and a few misquoted philosophical lines of reasoning that don't even make claims anywhere near as ambitious or ignorant as the ones you have been and are making.

You have failed to back up every claim you have made to the point I would be too ashamed to reply if positions were reversed. I have debated with intelligent people using complex and interesting lines of philosophical enquiry backed up with real-life examples and I would definitely not count you among them.
You are precisely the kind of idiot that gives philosophy a bad name and I think you should be rather ashamed of the woefully inadequate defence you put up of your laughably ill thought out claims.

I will allow your poorly veiled retreat, we are done here.