Controversial General Political Discussion

[Etzel Andergast]

Science is amoral

Unbiased you mean

It can't be amoral by any mean. Any action that a sapient being engages is normatively mediated. This mean we are in a game of giving and asking for reasons to publicly justify what we say or what we do.

The theoretical reasoning hail to the practical reason

 

[NAMELESS]

Unbiased you mean

It can't be amoral by any mean. Any action that a sapient being engages is normatively mediated. This mean we are in a game of giving and asking for reasons to publicly justify what we say or what we do.

The theoretical reasoning hail to the practical reason

Science is a method,there is no morality intrinsic to it.

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Science is a method,there is no morality intrinsic to it.

Right, it's a methods with it's own standards created by conventions. Any person who engage in this activity needs to follow the rules of the method. Rules are norms, thats why every human action is normatively mediated. The norms are social conventions that rule any human activity (theoretical or practical). As a person who engage in this activity, your normative status (commitments and entitlements) will depend on your performance. So, you are responsible by your performance in the game of following rule.
Engage in the practice of makes science make you responsible. Responsability is a deontological and therefore a moral concept.

Norms (morals) govern all rational activity
[automerge]1705793562[/automerge]

Right, it's a methods with it's own standards create by conventions. Any person who engage in this activity needs to follow the rules of the method. Rules are norms, thats why every human action is normatively mediated. The norms are social conventions that rule any human activity (theoretical or practical). As a person who engage in this activity, your normative status (commitments and entitlements) will depend of your performance. So, you are responsible by your performance in the game of following rule.
Engage in the practice of make science make you responsible. Responsability is a deontological and therefore a moral concept.

This is normative pragmatics (Brandom and Wittgenstein)

Norms (morals) govern all rational activity

And this is basically Kant

 

[NAMELESS]

Right, it's a methods with it's own standards create by conventions. Any person who engage in this activity needs to follow the rules of the method. Rules are norms, thats why every human action is normatively mediated. The norms are social conventions that rule any human activity (theoretical or practical). As a person who engage in this activity, your normative status (commitments and entitlements) will depend of your performance. So, you are responsible by your performance in the game of following rule.
Engage in the practice of make science make you responsible. Responsability is a deontological and therefore a moral concept.

Norms (morals) govern all rational activity
[automerge]1705793562[/automerge]

This is normative pragmatics (Brandom and Wittgenstein)


And this is basically Kant

Nazi and Japanese scientists didn't follow any fucking rules of morality in ww2,that doesn't mean science is immoral(or moral for that matter). Just like a hammer isn't immoral or moral if it cracks someone in the head because some asshole decided to go homicidal. Science is a tool(a method). The ethics and morals of it are things we created,but aren't intrinsic to it. The scientific discoveries made by nazis aren't invalid just because human experimentation is immoral. Morality isn't intrisic to observation,experimentation and repetition of predictable results(scientific method). An abstraction or a inert object can't have intrisic moral value to it. Morals and ethics are values that are assigned by us to these things.
[automerge]1705794541[/automerge]

Right, it's a methods with it's own standards created by conventions. Any person who engage in this activity needs to follow the rules of the method. Rules are norms, thats why every human action is normatively mediated. The norms are social conventions that rule any human activity (theoretical or practical). As a person who engage in this activity, your normative status (commitments and entitlements) will depend on your performance. So, you are responsible by your performance in the game of following rule.
Engage in the practice of makes science make you responsible. Responsability is a deontological and therefore a moral concept.

Norms (morals) govern all rational activity
[automerge]1705793562[/automerge]

This is normative pragmatics (Brandom and Wittgenstein)


And this is basically Kant

hum...you want to have a philosophical joust now. I remember that i heard the craziest things in modern/contemporary philosophy classes back in high school.

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Nazi and Japanese scientists didn't follow any fucking rules of morality in ww2,that doesn't mean science is immoral(or moral for that matter). Just like a hammer isn't immoral if it cracks someone in the head because someasshole decided to go homicidal. Science is a tool(a method). The ethics and morals of it are things we created,but aren't intrinsic to it. The scientific discoveries made by nazis aren't invalid just because human experimentation is immoral. Morality isn't intrisic to observation,experimentation and repetition of predictable results(scientific method).

I'm using moral in the deontological sense, as synonym of "norms". And in the deontology, "good" and "evil" are not the central notions. The central thesis is whether certain action is conform to certain rule.

Sorry, I'm just talking about this because I'm bored and want to talk about philosophy

 

[NAMELESS]

I'm using moral in the deontological sense, as synonym of "norms". And in the deontology, "good" and "evil" are not the central notions. The central thesis is whether certain action is conform to certain rule.

Sorry, I'm just talking about this because I'm bored and want to talk about philosophy

I remember i really liked philosophy back when i was around 15,maybe its time i touch books again instead of shit posting here.
Ok,i was talking about moral in the sense of good and evil. He weren't really talking about the same thing then.

 

[Bob74h]

If you have a problem with that, you can become an antiscience militant, I'm sure that a lot of complotists and flat earthers would be glad to welcome you.

there are levels to this


denying gender studies majors is not remotely the same as denying astrologists or biologists



you dont need to be idealogically left leaning to accept that earth is not flat


anybody can buy a telescope and confrim planets are real not a curtain put over the frimament as bible suggets



social science is idealogy based, real science can be independly verifed over and over by anyone

It is verified and it is reviewed so you are obviously talking about a subject you don't really understand a thing about.

leftists review over leftist theory and go all good here



like ofc they would.



it's like asking nazi on their stance on nazism and then going omg the nazis accepted the nazi positions



get people remotely critial of leftist belief to review over your studies and see how easily they get destroyed


if this was a field like biology, your studies wouldt make it past peer review cause the standard of evidence is far higher

In your world.. Its you who are right and its the entire scientific consensus that is wrong.

it's carrot who's right and not the consenus of right wingers or bibibical schoalars



you can pull the muh consenus bs for anything motherfucker, it's not a valid argument



ad poplum is a fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum



fallacies arent arguments

That's not how science works. If people were neutral, there wouldn't be science in the first place. I proved you how science can be extremely bias if we don't take a political approach through multiple scientific paper about the place of woman is science. But as always, you ignored it.

so the social studies fall apart if you dont apply your idealogical beliefs



aint that my whole point and you just admitted to it lol

You assertion is the typical antiscience argumentation that all scientist have to face and fight during their lives from ignorant people who don't know how science works. Weither or not scientific knowledge can be applied to real life is another debate. Researches's job is to produce produced knowledge and that's what they do.

you disliked animal biology cause it didt concern humans



you dont care about knowledge for knowledge's sake.


you just want your poltics pushed and that's why your defending the social sciences cause they parrot the left's belief ie yours



i care about knowledge which is why your shit is wrong



here's the honest truth, polling data is only so creditble cause you can always select the sample to include people who are of your belief


and when your ''science'' is based on what can easily be maniplated then yea it's pretty good faith to reject it



if you want carrot, i can poll a alt right group on femmism and say that's valid cause if you gonna poll far leftists and use them as proof vice versa should also be fair




your reasoning is so easily tore apart and you just dont care cause your facade of objectivity is just that.



you are just leftist zealot pushing your belief and most here see through your shit man. it's a waste of time cut the venere of reason


and just push your leftist beliefs bluntly like some some twitter dude cause at least, you being clear on what your about rn you just hiding under a facade of rationaity when your value is belief in the leftism cause not fact



if it's a case of facts or your belief, you choose your faith at the night


cause leftsim is just modern day christainity


just a belief who in future times will be laughed at just like the bible

 

[Zenos7]

This is not a hierarchical system, its called a coercive system.

not mutually exclusive. there is an obvious and clear hierarchy between virtually all adults that work in schools, not just teachers, and students.

edit: oh and of course the hierarchy among the adults

 

[NAMELESS]

cause leftsim is just modern day christainity
just a belief who in future times will be laughed at just like the bible

Bro,wtf is this?

[automerge]1705798686[/automerge]

there are levels to this


denying gender studies majors is not remotely the same as denying astrologists or biologists



you dont need to be idealogically left leaning to accept that earth is not flat


anybody can buy a telescope and confrim planets are real not a curtain put over the frimament as bible suggets



social science is idealogy based, real science can be independly verifed over and over by anyone







leftists review over leftist theory and go all good here



like ofc they would.



it's like asking nazi on their stance on nazism and then going omg the nazis accepted the nazi positions



get people remotely critial of leftist belief to review over your studies and see how easily they get destroyed


if this was a field like biology, your studies wouldt make it past peer review cause the standard of evidence is far higher








it's carrot who's right and not the consenus of right wingers or bibibical schoalars



you can pull the muh consenus bs for anything motherfucker, it's not a valid argument



ad poplum is a fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum



fallacies arent arguments








so the social studies fall apart if you dont apply your idealogical beliefs



aint that my whole point and you just admitted to it lol




you disliked animal biology cause it didt concern humans



you dont care about knowledge for knowledge's sake.


you just want your poltics pushed and that's why your defending the social sciences cause they parrot the left's belief ie yours



i care about knowledge which is why your shit is wrong



here's the honest truth, polling data is only so creditble cause you can always select the sample to include people who are of your belief


and when your ''science'' is based on what can easily be maniplated then yea it's pretty good faith to reject it



if you want carrot, i can poll a alt right group on femmism and say that's valid cause if you gonna poll far leftists and use them as proof vice versa should also be fair




your reasoning is so easily tore apart and you just dont care cause your facade of objectivity is just that.



you are just leftist zealot pushing your belief and most here see through your shit man. it's a waste of time cut the venere of reason


and just push your leftist beliefs bluntly like some some twitter dude cause at least, you being clear on what your about rn you just hiding under a facade of rationaity when your value is belief in the leftism cause not fact



if it's a case of facts or your belief, you choose your faith at the night


cause leftsim is just modern day christainity


just a belief who in future times will be laughed at just like the bible

The guy studied art and think he is an intelectual or something. Ignore him.

 

[Logiko]

Eugenics was a thing,btw. I like science,but i don't worship scientists,because they have their bias like we all do.

Yes, my point exactly. This is why science without a moral compass can only lead to both destructions and wonders.
This is why doing science can only be done be keeping certain values intact. Therefore to make ethical science, you need to integrate ethical politic in it.

Look up who Antonio Gramsci was,it has nothing to with progress,but simple politics

Because a man is a politician or full of ideologies about the world doesn't mean that he can't do objective science mate. The one who theorized the Big Bang was a catholic priest.

So no, academia are not hijacked by Marxist, scientific research are just confirming theories of the marxists.

But that's interesting, if you think that leftist have an hold on history. What makes you think that you can trust history books then ? What makes you think that you can trust anthropology, archeology, geography, linguistic ? All those sciences are not based on popperian reasonning.. like mathematics or physic..

So what makes you think that you can trust the world around you ?

By coherency, you should be questionning a lot of basic knowledge.. so what makes you trust what scientific tells you on those subjects ?

You called everyone and their mother fascist,nazi

Hm no. Only in your dream. I never called anyone on this forum a fascist or a nazi (you can check back)

But I know that you love to lie to yourself and others

In fact, I don't even remember calling anyone outside the forum a fascist or a Nazi. Crypto fascist, yes, one or two people, but fascist or Nazi ? I don't even call the state of Israel that. (not really yet)

Take your own advice for once :

stop lying.

Unbiased you mean

It can't be amoral by any mean. Any action that a sapient being engages is normatively mediated. This mean we are in a game of giving and asking for reasons to publicly justify what we say or what we do.

The theoretical reasoning hail to the practical reason

I'm not much of a philosopher, but that's interesting

Nazi and Japanese scientists didn't follow any fucking rules of morality in ww2

Actually yes they did. Their morality.

I'm bored and want to talk about philosophy

If there is a discipline were I'm completely blind its philosophy



Sometimes I think its the most important thing beside sciences and art and sometimes it appears to me as the most useless disciplines we have created... I simply can't choose..

But respect to those you dive into that mayham

denying gender studies majors is not remotely the same as denying astrologists or biologists

Well.. yes it is.
The only difference is that by denying sociologist, you will deny a relatively young science, but the process is the same
(and I think you meant "astronomers" because astrology is an infinite miles aways from being a science.)

you dont need to be idealogically left leaning to accept that earth is not flat

Yes indeed. And you shouldn't need to be ideologically left leaning to accept gender studies either.. and yet we are...

Gender studies are speaking about factual data, not ideological numbers. Its what we make of those data that can be political.

You can accept that transgender exist and the fact that sex and gender are two very different things and still consider trans people as subhuman. If you like science, that would be coherent. Maleficient but coherent.

social science is idealogy based

Nop. Its based on real research and real data mate..

Until you accept that, you will never understand what science truly is.

leftists review over leftist theory and go all good here

Then why are sociologist often disagreeing with eachothers ?

For example you can take the example of Bourdieu. This man theorized admirativally the concepts of capitals and understood that women were facing an oppression under patriarchy... but he didn't really understood that he needed to write himself into the processus of domination and therefore thought about a system that was exterior to men when its in fact a system where all men are participating and benefiting from this oppression. As this video demonstrate (its in french but I think that the english translation works well)

if this was a field like biology, your studies wouldt make it past peer review cause the standard of evidence is far higher

This is not the same field of science. Its doesn't work the same way. Sorry, but your comparison is completely irrelevant.

it's carrot who's right and not the consenus of right wingers or bibibical schoalars

Are you really trying to say that I should listen to right wingers ideologues and biblical scholars ?

it's not a valid argument

Hm yes it is, when we talk about science.

ad poplum is a fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum



fallacies arent arguments

Indeed. But the argumentatum ad populum doesn't apply to the scientific consensus mate

so the social studies fall apart if you dont apply your idealogical beliefs



aint that my whole point and you just admitted to it lol

Not my ideologies. Just basic humans values about the world.

you disliked animal biology cause it didt concern humans

What makes you say that I dislike animal biology. I find that discipline extremely fascinating as a world builder

Are you finished lying yet ?

you dont care about knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Actually I do. I'm a enormous Cosmologist fan. And this is as close as you can get from knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Are you finished lying yet ?

you just want your poltics pushed and that's why your defending the social sciences cause they parrot the left's belief ie yours

Yup. Completely. At least you got that right. Science helps me a lot so its just fair that I helps promotes science.

i care about knowledge which is why your shit is wrong

if you cared about knowledge, you would know that sociology is a scientific discipline and you would learn from it or at least you wouldn't deny its legitimacy

You don't care about knowledge mate and you don't care about science

here's the honest truth, polling data is only so creditble cause you can always select the sample to include people who are of your belief

Well yeah.. this is something that can happens in hard sciences too. No spoilers here

and when your ''science'' is based on what can easily be maniplated then yea it's pretty good faith to reject it

Yup. That's why scientists from hard and soft sciences are taking their time to make sure to make good science. No spoilers here either

if you want carrot, i can poll a alt right group on femmism and say that's valid cause if you gonna poll far leftists and use them as proof vice versa should also be fair

Well try.. and post your result.. we will see how the scientific community will react.

If you think that science can be done so easily.. why don't you try?

your reasoning is so easily tore apart and you just dont care cause your facade of objectivity is just that.

Damn you completely annihilated my reasonning.. I'm completely shattered in pieces.. You debunked everything..

lol

if you want carrot

Who is Carrot ?

you are just leftist zealot pushing your belief

I'm also queen elisabeth the first and a soldier of the church...

and just push your leftist beliefs bluntly like some some twitter dude cause at least, you being clear on what your about rn you just hiding under a facade of rationaity when your value is belief in the leftism cause not fact

Sometimes, talking with you feels like I'm talking with a drunk person. I know you want to say something.. and I know that you want to try to make sence and you think that you have the knowledge of the universe in the palm of your hand.. but the majority of the time its just feels like you are talking about how sad you are.

cause leftsim is just modern day christainity

Yup, I told you I'm a soldier of the church

just a belief who in future times will be laughed at just like the bible

Well.. I know who is laughing right now at least...

not mutually exclusive. there is an obvious and clear hierarchy between virtually all adults that work in schools, not just teachers, and students.

I can admit that yes.

Bro,wtf is this?

Far right incel, meet far right identitarist

Fight !

The guy studied art and think he is an intelectual or something. Ignore him.

Yeah, why don't you ignore me ?

 

[NAMELESS]

Yes, my point exactly. This is why science without a moral compass can only lead to both destructions and wonders.
This is why doing science can only be done be keeping certain values intact. Therefore to make ethical science, you need to integrate ethical politic in it.


Because a man is a politician or full of ideologies about the world doesn't mean that he can't do objective science mate. The one who theorized the Big Bang was a catholic priest.

So no, academia are not hijacked by Marxist, scientific research are just confirming theories of the marxists.

But that's interesting, if you think that leftist have an hold on history. What makes you think that you can trust history books then ? What makes you think that you can trust anthropology, archeology, geography, linguistic ? All those sciences are not based on popperian reasonning.. like mathematics or physic..

So what makes you think that you can trust the world around you ?

By coherency, you should be questionning a lot of basic knowledge.. so what makes you trust what scientific tells you on those subjects ?



Hm no. Only in your dream. I never called anyone on this forum a fascist or a nazi (you can check back)

But I know that you love to lie to yourself and others

In fact, I don't even remember calling anyone outside the forum a fascist or a Nazi. Crypto fascist, yes, one or two people, but fascist or Nazi ? I don't even call the state of Israel that. (not really yet)

Take your own advice for once :



I'm not much of a philosopher, but that's interesting



Actually yes they did. Their morality.



If there is a discipline were I'm completely blind its philosophy



Sometimes I think its the most important thing beside sciences and art and sometimes it appears to me as the most useless disciplines we have created... I simply can't choose..

But respect to those you dive into that mayham


Well.. yes it is.
The only difference is that by denying sociologist, you will deny a relatively young science, but the process is the same
(and I think you meant "astronomers" because astrology is an infinite miles aways from being a science.)



Yes indeed. And you shouldn't need to be ideologically left leaning to accept gender studies either.. and yet we are...

Gender studies are speaking about factual data, not ideological numbers. Its what we make of those data that can be political.

You can accept that transgender exist and the fact that sex and gender are two very different things and still consider trans people as subhuman. If you like science, that would be coherent. Maleficient but coherent.



Nop. Its based on real research and real data mate..

Until you accept that, you will never understand what science truly is.



Then why are sociologist often disagreeing with eachothers ?

For example you can take the example of Bourdieu. This man theorized admirativally the concepts of capitals and understood that women were facing an oppression under patriarchy... but he didn't really understood that he needed to write himself into the processus of domination and therefore thought about a system that was exterior to men when its in fact a system where all men are participating and benefiting from this oppression. As this video demonstrate (its in french but I think that the english translation works well)

This is not the same field of science. Its doesn't work the same way. Sorry, but your comparison is completely irrelevant.



Are you really trying to say that I should listen to right wingers ideologues and biblical scholars ?





Hm yes it is, when we talk about science.



Indeed. But the argumentatum ad populum doesn't apply to the scientific consensus mate




Not my ideologies. Just basic humans values about the world.



What makes you say that I dislike animal biology. I find that discipline extremely fascinating as a world builder

Are you finished lying yet ?



Actually I do. I'm a enormous Cosmologist fan. And this is as close as you can get from knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Are you finished lying yet ?



Yup. Completely. At least you got that right. Science helps me a lot so its just fair that I helps promotes science.



if you cared about knowledge, you would know that sociology is a scientific discipline and you would learn from it or at least you wouldn't deny its legitimacy

You don't care about knowledge mate and you don't care about science




Well yeah.. this is something that can happens in hard sciences too. No spoilers here



Yup. That's why scientists from hard and soft sciences are taking their time to make sure to make good science. No spoilers here either


Well try.. and post your result.. we will see how the scientific community will react.

If you think that science can be done so easily.. why don't you try?

Damn you completely annihilated my reasonning.. I'm completely shattered in pieces.. You debunked everything..

lol



Who is Carrot ?


I'm also queen elisabeth the first and a soldier of the church...



Sometimes, talking with you feels like I'm talking with a drunk person. I know you want to say something.. and I know that you want to try to make sence and you that you think that you have the knowledge of the universe in the palm of your hand.. but the majority of the time its just feels like you are talking about how sad you are.



Yup, I told you I'm a soldier of the church

Well.. I know who is laughing right now at least...



I can admit that yes.


Far right incel, meet far right identitarist

Fight !



Yeah, why don't you ignore me ?

Yes, my point exactly. This is why science without a moral compass can only lead to both destructions and wonders.
This is why doing science can only be done be keeping certain values intact. Therefore to make ethical science, you need to integrate ethical politic in it.


Because a man is a politician or full of ideologies about the world doesn't mean that he can't do objective science mate. The one who theorized the Big Bang was a catholic priest.

So no, academia are not hijacked by Marxist, scientific research are just confirming theories of the marxists.

But that's interesting, if you think that leftist have an hold on history. What makes you think that you can trust history books then ? What makes you think that you can trust anthropology, archeology, geography, linguistic ? All those sciences are not based on popperian reasonning.. like mathematics or physic..

So what makes you think that you can trust the world around you ?

By coherency, you should be questionning a lot of basic knowledge.. so what makes you trust what scientific tells you on those subjects ?



Hm no. Only in your dream. I never called anyone on this forum a fascist or a nazi (you can check back)

But I know that you love to lie to yourself and others

In fact, I don't even remember calling anyone outside the forum a fascist or a Nazi. Crypto fascist, yes, one or two people, but fascist or Nazi ? I don't even call the state of Israel that. (not really yet)

Take your own advice for once :



I'm not much of a philosopher, but that's interesting



Actually yes they did. Their morality.



If there is a discipline were I'm completely blind its philosophy



Sometimes I think its the most important thing beside sciences and art and sometimes it appears to me as the most useless disciplines we have created... I simply can't choose..

But respect to those you dive into that mayham


Well.. yes it is.
The only difference is that by denying sociologist, you will deny a relatively young science, but the process is the same
(and I think you meant "astronomers" because astrology is an infinite miles aways from being a science.)



Yes indeed. And you shouldn't need to be ideologically left leaning to accept gender studies either.. and yet we are...

Gender studies are speaking about factual data, not ideological numbers. Its what we make of those data that can be political.

You can accept that transgender exist and the fact that sex and gender are two very different things and still consider trans people as subhuman. If you like science, that would be coherent. Maleficient but coherent.



Nop. Its based on real research and real data mate..

Until you accept that, you will never understand what science truly is.



Then why are sociologist often disagreeing with eachothers ?

For example you can take the example of Bourdieu. This man theorized admirativally the concepts of capitals and understood that women were facing an oppression under patriarchy... but he didn't really understood that he needed to write himself into the processus of domination and therefore thought about a system that was exterior to men when its in fact a system where all men are participating and benefiting from this oppression. As this video demonstrate (its in french but I think that the english translation works well)

This is not the same field of science. Its doesn't work the same way. Sorry, but your comparison is completely irrelevant.



Are you really trying to say that I should listen to right wingers ideologues and biblical scholars ?





Hm yes it is, when we talk about science.



Indeed. But the argumentatum ad populum doesn't apply to the scientific consensus mate




Not my ideologies. Just basic humans values about the world.



What makes you say that I dislike animal biology. I find that discipline extremely fascinating as a world builder

Are you finished lying yet ?



Actually I do. I'm a enormous Cosmologist fan. And this is as close as you can get from knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Are you finished lying yet ?



Yup. Completely. At least you got that right. Science helps me a lot so its just fair that I helps promotes science.



if you cared about knowledge, you would know that sociology is a scientific discipline and you would learn from it or at least you wouldn't deny its legitimacy

You don't care about knowledge mate and you don't care about science




Well yeah.. this is something that can happens in hard sciences too. No spoilers here



Yup. That's why scientists from hard and soft sciences are taking their time to make sure to make good science. No spoilers here either


Well try.. and post your result.. we will see how the scientific community will react.

If you think that science can be done so easily.. why don't you try?

Damn you completely annihilated my reasonning.. I'm completely shattered in pieces.. You debunked everything..

lol



Who is Carrot ?


I'm also queen elisabeth the first and a soldier of the church...



Sometimes, talking with you feels like I'm talking with a drunk person. I know you want to say something.. and I know that you want to try to make sence and you that you think that you have the knowledge of the universe in the palm of your hand.. but the majority of the time its just feels like you are talking about how sad you are.



Yup, I told you I'm a soldier of the church

Well.. I know who is laughing right now at least...



I can admit that yes.


Far right incel, meet far right identitarist

Fight !



Yeah, why don't you ignore me ?

Antonio Gramsci was a philosopher and not a politician. I'm putting you on ignore. Too tired of your bullshit.

 

[Logiko]

Antonio Gramsci was a philosopher and not a politician

"or full of ideologies". I wasn't talking specifically of this person. I was making a general argument mate about your overall horrible point of view. But I guess you won't see that hehehe

 

[Zenos7]

I can admit that yes.

:cheers:

 

[Herrera95]

Ho ! Are you pulling up the last card you have ? The "you are an antisemite" card ?

You are against Jews you are antisemite by default
[automerge]1705802069[/automerge]

you misunderstand if you disagree with the left


then your a nazi kkk member



nazi only has to relate with disagreeing with people like carrot


any relation to isarel or historic events is wrong


nazi = modern day conservative



random idiots on twitter said so.


so pretty sure that's proof enough


aint that right carrot??

Not sure what your point is

 

[Etzel Andergast]

If there is a discipline were I'm completely blind its philosophy



Sometimes I think its the most important thing beside sciences and art and sometimes it appears to me as the most useless disciplines we have created... I simply can't choose..

I consider philosophy as a metasubject, i.e, philosophy doesnt have a determined object of study, but can study anything in the most general sense (analitically or holistically), trying to determine all essential features of something, expressing conceptually with greater degrees of clarity. For being a metasubject it can try to determine the characteristics of branch of studies. We can agree that physics of chesmitry by itself can't answer metaquestions like: (1)what is science? (2)can science understanding the reality? (3)what is knowledge? (4) knowlwdge of reality is really possible? And so on

Do you think any branch of science can ask these general questions?

 

[Logiko]

If you are against Jews you are antisemite by default

Cool, I'm not against jews. So I'm cool then. :D

I consider philosophy as a metasubject, i.e, philosophy doesnt have a determined object of study, but can study anything in the most general sense (analitically or holistically), trying to determine all essential features of something, expressing conceptually with greater degrees of clarity. For being a metasubject it can try to determine the characteristics of branch of studies. We can agree that physics of chesmitry by itself can't answer metaquestions like: (1)what is science? (2)can science understanding the reality? (3)what is knowledge? (4) knowlwdge of reality is really possible? And so on

Do you think any branch of science can ask these general questions?

I think that 1 and 4 yes (just not right now for the last one), 2 and 3 I'm not sure indeed. But I do understand the importance of philosophy.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

You are against Jews you are antisemite by default

Not all jews support the state of Israel's actions in Gaza

 

[Bob74h]

This is not the same field of science. Its doesn't work the same way. Sorry, but your comparison is completely irrelevant.

if it's meant to be science then comparisons between what you would call non poppperian science and popperian science are inevitable


if you wanna tell people it's science ie the same thing then people gonna expects it works the same or at least follows similar procedure


this is like if you have one movie and a sequel yet the sequel is nothing like it's predcessor


are people wrong for going yea this aint really insert thing



if it functions so differently then it's not the same thing

Then why are sociologist often disagreeing with eachothers ?

cause people holding the same belief system can agree with one another


what kinda argument is this??




are two conservatives disagreeing proof that one is now no longer conservative???

Who is Carrot ?

you


before you went by logiko



you had the name carrot for nakama



stop playing dumb

Bro,wtf is this?

im making comparision


christainty and leftism are purely idealogical with next to nothing objective



only difference being, is leftism would be the dominant idealogy at least the mainstream



during the 90s, it was christan conservatives who ran everything



leftists take their power for granted, acting like it's 1970s america


where women couldt vote had less rights and so on


christan conservatives were the mainstream


and blacks were still opressed and had less rights with jim crow




it's 2024, all of that changed now liberals run everything with christan conservatives having no mainstream power


and women and black people if anything having more rights then the white men but who cares about reality when you can focus on idealogy and pretend it's still ragan era

Are you really trying to say that I should listen to right wingers ideologues and biblical scholars ?

no not at all



that would be retarded.



you would just be going from one extreme to another



the point of the statement there was to show you can get any result you want if you poll for the right people


hence why polling data is a flawed metric, if you ask the right people you gonna get whatever answer you want



ask 1,000 flat earthers on if the earth is flat and dont be shocked when you get answers on it being flat



if you poll bias people answers


yes if im entering some ultra liberal campus and poll them, im going to get leftist answers but that's cause your selecting for a demograpic that will spoon feed you the answers you want



again try selecting for a crowd who are critial or even better yet they are one of those dont care about poltics types


if you select for non biased people or even slightly opposing people


you wont get the same numbers of polls on your side.



anybody can poll biased people to get biased answers, it's not in theory hard
[automerge]1705813301[/automerge]

(and I think you meant "astronomers" because astrology is an infinite miles aways from being a science.)

my mistake


i did mean astronomer


the people who study stars,space,planets and so on



the terminlogy is just spelled similar hence the mistake
[automerge]1705813338[/automerge]

(and I think you meant "astronomers" because astrology is an infinite miles aways from being a science.)

my mistake


i did mean astronomer


the people who study stars,space,planets and so on



the terminlogy is just spelled similar hence the mistake

 

[BleakAsh]

@NikaInParis @BleakAsh

Poetic irony.

 

[Ravagerblade]