RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 25, 2019 at 8:36 pm
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2019 at 8:49 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 25, 2019 at 8:11 pm)bennyboy Wrote:Straw men? I repeated a thing you typed, literally, and corrected you with respect to what I've been commenting on. I'd tell you to fuck off with that dumb shit, but I know you won't, not that you can't, ofc......
(March 25, 2019 at 5:03 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Science is a form of empirical investigation. There is no "empiricism vs science".Stop with the straw men, dude. You should know that they are obvious, and I'll call you out on them. You were the one who responded to posts about science with discussions about empiricism. And they are not the same-- one is a subset of the other.
But..sure, science is a subset of empirical investigation, and on that basis alone it's hard to ascertain why any empirical whatsit would be a black box for scientific inquiry regardless of whether or not science has yet, or even will ever answer a specific empirical question. It's the best tool we've come up with yet for answering questions of that sort..and you've been leaning on it, even if you can't quite bring yourself to accurately represent it, in this conversation.
That's what makes your cants so shaky, but I'm still willing to assume them for no reason other than to move this conversation past bitching about science or your relative level of satisfaction with it as you see it.
Quote:Science as we mean it today is an empirical method with specific bounds: e.g. that observations can be shared with others independent of interpretation and without regard to world view. You are the one who keeps trying to talk about empiricism in general. My thesis was that there are some questions science cannot answer. That's all it ever was.There's no such thing as a scientific conclusion independent of interpretation..or -any- empirical observation independent of interpretation, for that matter, but so what, still willing to assume your can'ts without any of this convoluted horseshit required. It's simply not true that this statement is the entirety of your "thesis", and you do yourself a disservice claiming as much now when your posts still exist for anyone to scroll back and read...you know...empirically.
Quote:In response to your constant harping about empiricism (which I take as deliberate since you are responding to me, and I was always talking about science), then I've given that you could include other kinds of empiricism, like introspective insight, in the definition of science if YOU want to. And even if you did-- there would still be questions science couldn't answer.Still not sure how you think you'd know that..hasn't won't and can't still aren't the same thing. I haven't shot anyone in china, and I wont be able to, but it isn't because guns don't work, aren't the proper tool for shooting people, or can't shoot someone in china.
-and it still doesn't matter, since I'm still willing to assume your can'ts so that we can figure out what you think that would suggest, indicate, or certify. Assuming science can't..not hasn't or won't..but can't answer some question....then...what?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
