100d
@KellyJay saidI don't know any serious scientist who would make such a ludicrous claim. You're setting up a straw man here.
Has scientism corrupted science?
As defined as
Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.
100d
@Suzianne saidAccepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
I wanna see your definition of corrupted.
100d
@KellyJay saidSome specific examples might help KellyJay?
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
@KellyJay saidCould you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
100d
@Indonesia-Phil saidLooks like you’re also on “stoppage of talk” Phil.
Could you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?
😆
100d
@Indonesia-Phil saidWe all have worldviews how we see the world, with it how everything gets measured where we judge as normal and natural.
Could you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?
100d
@KellyJay saidDo you have even one specific example to demonstrate how your OP isn’t just a strawman premise?
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
Just one.
@KellyJay saidEinstein's theory of relativity could be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a repeatable experiment showing that the speed of light is cumulative, for example. Evolution could also be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a fossil find of a colony of rabbits in a pre-cambrian stratum.
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
99d
@moonbus saidYou should figure out how all of the unique Cambrian species showed up at that
Einstein's theory of relativity could be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a repeatable experiment showing that the speed of light is cumulative, for example. Evolution could also be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a fossil find of a colony of rabbits in a pre-cambrian stratum.
time with the limited time that was available pre-Cambrian. As you know I'm not
worried about time as I am processing, nor do rates matter as much in measuring
time if you don't know how and when it all began. This is all old stuff we have
gone over before ad nauseam.
Do you believe in science that only through science can we know anything? In
addition, are there things you are also prepared to say science cannot address, so
our knowledge if we must depend on science alone will always be lacking?