Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:12 am
You mean like you your theory which you have not demonstrated?
Or the imaginary nature of the scientific method as a process of spinning interpretations?
How do you demonstrate "reality" without falling under some empty assumption that is in both from and function no different than empty space?
For 'God is an impossibility to be real' I have provided he relevant argument.
Do you have a counter to it?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
The scientific method is of an imaginary nature.
You have twisted the meaning of 'imaginary' in this case.
The scientific method is processed by real experiments and processes.
How can you be so ignorant of this.
Whatever is demonstrated as reality, this can be tested by anyone.
Say, the oncoming train is real, you can try standing in front of it if you doubt it is real.
How have I twisted "imaginary" when all images are contexts of a greater whole and all experiments are contexts?
The method is made up, we did not find it scientifically without first admitting it is both a loop and onservation of loops. Loop at the history of science, it is a byproduct of evolution and as a bi product we will eventually evolve past certain forms of it.
The majority of experiments cannot be repeated by the general public due to advanced equipment and even the experiments, ones which alter contexts, are corporate funded and cherry picked...thus showing a conceptual bias. If something is to be measured according to x, y and a contexts, but only x is chosen...then this "fact" was cherry picked.
Most experiments do not occur because of financial and political ramifications as well as biases, thus most "facts" are effectively chosen.
That "oncoming train" is a metaphor....it is imaginary.
You do understand the number of deaths science is responsible for right? How much technical advancement we procured in the 20th century was through Nazi collaboration right?
Do you support fascism? And the extinguishing of ideologies and races?
We are well aware, throughout the history of scientific theories, many theories whilst accepted at one time were rejected at another time or even brought back later. Example the galactical object Pluto was once class as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again.
Given the above, we have to view scientific truths with different levels of credibility and the degree of confidence level one can apply to scientific theories based on how the scientific method are done. Point is all the scientific theories as claimed and accepted are very transparent thus accessible for anyone or groups to place their confidence levels on the respective scientific theories.
The amount of confidence level will also vary with the different class of Science, e.g. Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. plus how long the scientific theory has been established.
Surely most people will place a high confidence level say 99% [100% impossible' that within the stated qualifications, scientifically, water is comprised of 2 oxygen and one hydrogen molecules.
Where it is known where political and financial considerations could be involved we have to discount the confidence of the scientific theory by some %, especially those related to climate change and medicines.
You cannot conflate moral issues with scientific truths. They are apples and oranges. That is the problem with your shallow and narrow thinking.