Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Not while the subject is alive. That negates what you appear to be saying.

Also neither would correctly involve nuclear medicine.

You are correct on this point; well spotted. I made a mistake and actually meant to write "Positron Emission Tomography" (PET) scanner. This is a nuclear medicine device, which can monitor neurotransmitter activity in the brain when the human subject is alive.

---

To which I reply, QED.

It must be an odd university that does not have doctoral candidates but doctoral students and has a fixed four year program for same. Similar concerns on a "first class" MS. Perhaps that is how it is done in England or Australia.

So, in order to understand a subject, does this mean that one must hold a bachelor's degree or higher?

I was expecting an attempt to explain the odd terminology and a fixed four year PhD program. Instead I get an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issues. That is more than enough to call bullshit on all your claims.

Do you need a degree to understand evolutionary biology? Of course not. Furthermore, why don't you find a passage with which you disagree and discuss it instead of being pedantic and petty?

Running with the attempted deflection however I made no such claim. I have noted most everyone here has disagreed with your ideas about philosophy and what philosophy is and is about. You have adamantly stuck to your positions. You have "invoked" an imaginary REAL philosophy student to contradict a post.

Yet the entire foundation of your posts and positions is hobby knowledge which NO ONE has in any form certified is even close to correct. Perhaps you should tell us all upon what basis you have lead yourself to assume your views are correct. Again, full disclosure.

Again, I am not disclosing the location in which I reside. Whether or not you believe me about my qualifications and study is none of my business, although I will say that "first class" and "distinction" are used interchangably at the university from which I graduated.

I was not interested in the tech part and the quick response on PET scan indicates the kind of knowledge such tech claims would encompass suggests no reason to question them.

However the primary issue regarding you views of philosophy has been answered. You are on one side against many people who more or less agree with each other that you are wrong about philosophy based upon common knowledge about philosophy that they share. And the answer is you know nothing more about philosophy than your hobby interests have taken you.

This is not an issue of majority rule of course. It is the entire group against a hobbyist of one.

---

He did, actually!

And for my next trick I will pull a rabbit out of a hat.

He dropped off the face of the planet when I got serious with David. Such a shame.

Some guys are so mindlessly against polyandry.

---

Long ago, some men used philosophy to advance human thought, to increase our understanding of the world. In these modern times they have made a mockery of the discipline only to give confirmation bias to their wishfull thinking, to the point of solipsism. It angers me greatly that such an honorable discipline has been so much raped in interest of organized religion. That is why philosophy cannot stand alone in modern times, as 'philosophers' are like whores, competing for the johns. Shame to see such an honored discipline thrown in the gutter

A long time ago philosophy developed a sub-group called natural philosophy. That went on to call itself science and leave the rest of philosophy in the dustbin of history. Science progresses. Philosophy meanders from fad to fad and never gets anywhere.

The closest thing to a claim to fame it Hegelian dialect as a contributor to the greatest ever political scourge of mankind, Marxism.