Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Personally I don't pay much attention to other peoples beliefs until such time as they try to foist them on me. My concerns would more be about how people behave and how organised religion seeks to influence our society.
Agreed. That is how I am too for the most part. Outside of activism and the like I do not actually go looking for religious conversations in real life (cept on boards, but that is what it is !for! I guess). But I still end up in them at times. You can not go to a lot of pubs, parties, and get togethers without the subject eventually coming up a bit
Even then I am entirely silent in such conversations until someone directly talks to me. I would normally sit back and just listen. As soon as I am drawn in though, and invited to do so, I get as vocal as I would be here on boards
Cram said he is obnoxious and pr1ckish offline and nicer online. I think I am the other way around I am very quiet and laconic off line, and a bit strident online. Until such time as I am asked to open up, then it levels out 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Just to be clear I am not complaining about the book, I just don't like the man. Although in the same note, I have heard many people compliment the book and then talk about it and you realise that they haven't read it because what they are on about is not in the book at all but what they attribute to Dawkins and they seem to presume everything he talks about is in the book.
Yea Agreed. I think this is a problem in so many areas. I remember the issues that came up on social media when Sam Harris entertained a conversation on his podcast with Charles Murray.
I read so much criticism about that online since then, and most of it was about things that never actually happened, or were said, in the podcast in question! Rather they were all things that were said in a misleading article ABOUT the podcast that was published on.... oh I forget now.... VOX I think. I can find out if needs be.
But it was absolutely clear that there was a direct proportionality in play. The more strident someone was AGAINST the contents of the podcast, the more likely it was to turn out the speaker never actually listened to any of it.
So I guess I hold myself to a higher standard. I will not critique something someone said or wrote unless I A) read/heard the thing in question directly myself and
it was recent enough that I remember it and, when called out on it, can actually cite what I mean in defense of my position.
And due to that higher standard I can not help but find my respect for someone suffer a little if, when they are confronted in that way, say something like "Well I cant remember what he said but I seem to remember thinking at the time...." or "Well you know, I barely read half of it actually".
I try not to hold other people to the standards I hold for myself. But sometimes I fail.I read it many years ago, there are parts that were tough going (listing of sons of sons of sons)
Ah yes the family trees. I have been told that the only book harder than the bible to follow that stuff in, is Game Of Thrones.
I found it helped a lot to read the Bible in some of the more traditional versions. Like KJ version. Then to read the most recent translations/reinterpretations of it that are done in more recent vernacular. And then go back AGAIN and read the "originals".
There are people on boards who have done this in other languages so I defer to them usually. I have only done this in English and a TINY bit in German. Certainly not any other language, let alone relatively dead languages
But I find the same with Shakespeare. I used to love to read shakespeare. Then go read people who had translated it into "modern speak". And then go back and re-read the originals.0 -
-
I take his claims to his own intentions on face value and take his word for it. He calls his intentions "Consciousness Raising" but this is just a fancy term for wanting A) More people to be talking about atheism and more people who are atheists to be open about that fact.
I reckon he has been moderately to well successful at both of those aims. If he has any other "intentions" I can not say I am aware of what they might be. Or what anyone claiming they are there are basing it on.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I take his claims to his own intentions on face value and take his word for it. He calls his intentions "Consciousness Raising" but this is just a fancy term for wanting A) More people to be talking about atheism and more people who are atheists to be open about that fact.
I reckon he has been moderately to well successful at both of those aims. If he has any other "intentions" I can not say I am aware of what they might be. Or what anyone claiming they are there are basing it on.
The downside here is that it has many people, notably theists, to incorrectly conflate atheism with Dawkins' ruminations on the subject. I for one don't find this to be a helpful association.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ah, but are we redefining the meaning of "meaning" here?Bannasidhe wrote: »Been thinking about that during the day and have come to the conclusion that the meaning of the words was not changed or redefined - they mean the same thing whether they are used as an identity label or as a pejorative. A Dyke is still Dyke (butchish lesbian) and Queer is still Queer (not the 'usual'). What has changed is the automatic negative connotation.
If, when I use a particular word, everybody understands that is is pejorative, then that's part of the meaning of the word. Everything that is communicated to you when you hear the word is part of its meaning. So an abusive term for a homosexual person doesn't just mean "homosexual"; it means "homosexual-who-is-to-be-despised". And if the word is reclaimed, and stripped of its pejorative connotation then I'd argue that the meaning has indeed changed.
"Atheist" has in fact already gone through this process. It originally meant someone who denied or repudiated his or her duties to the gods. This might or might not be because of disbelief in the existence of the gods, or it could refer to disbelief in a particular god. (The early Christians were denounced as atheists, for example, because the would not offer sacrifice to the civic gods.) The word was inherently derogatory, because it assumed the moral or legal force of the duties being repudiated. [Agnostic was coined or, at least, adopted as a term that would focus on the question of lack of belief/knowledge, rather than repudiation of duty/practice.
Only in relatively modern times did atheist come to be a statement about lack of belief rather than failure in practice and that, coupled with enlightenment ideas about individual freedom an autonomy, opened the way to a non-pejorative sense. And this was accompanied by a shift in the meaning of agnostic; it came to refer to someone who not only did not know whether there was any god, but who asserted that such a thing couild not be known. Secular emerged as the term signifing living or acting in a non-religious way, without reference to relgious beliefs.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Since I don't possess the book any longer and have no desire to read it again I'd have to stick to jogging my memory from the Look Inside feature on Amazon.
So the quick answer is "no" you can not and will not cite the actual arguments made that you are setting up and knocking down? Thats hardly fair on... well anyone is it? Also citing a random page number does not help either as we can not assume all copies of the books are the same. Page 14 for you might not be page 14 for someone else. The paper back for example has an entire preface of nearly 10 pages that was not in the hard back.
No, I think if you want to honestly rebut someone's words and arguments it is a minimum standard of honesty to quote what exact words and arguments, in context, that person presented. You appear both unwilling an incapable of doing this. And I am entirely unsurprised by this.
For example "Page 14" in my copy does not mention anything to do with scriptures AT ALL. Rather it is a discussion about which modern theologians he takes seriously and why. In short the ones he takes most seriously are the ones that include in their works the concept that god might not exist, and then proceed to argue that god does exist. He takes less seriously theologians who simply write their entire book on the apriori assumption that there is a god and that this assumption is not to be questioned.
In general historically the Atheist Forum here on boards has a dim view of anyone who will not cite the background to their points and arguments when asked and the "Go find it yourself on google" approach has been rejected more times than I can count. Bear in mind here I am not rebutting or even disagreeing with your appraisal of his position or his points. That was the conversation you were having with someone else before and actually I could not care less if Dawkins did or did not say it, and if he was or was not right in doing so. But as an interested onlooker in the discussion.... I can not follow the discussion if I do not know, nor can I find, Dawkins saying the things you seemingly ascribe to him. And given your history on the forum I simply can not take your word for it that you are in any way moved to represent his positions and words in good faith.antiskeptic wrote: »He has a whole chapter on the great prayer experiment. Which presupposes prayer (if God existed and answered prayer) is subject to scientific inquiry.
You are going off on a rabbit hole tangent here nothing to do with what you were talking about before, or the citations you were asked to back up. Rather than back up the arguments you have presented SO FAR as you were directly asked to do, you are jumping on something else entirely and running away on a tangent away from it. This kind of dodge and deflect tends not to go unnoticed around here.
Actually to be more accurate, without your straw here, the experiments suppose that the EFFECTS of prayer are subject to scientific inquiry. Not so much prayer in and of itself. And this assumption is a valid one. After all if prayer does have an effect, then if you have a large sample group not subject to prayer, and a large sample who were not..... then if prayer has an effect at all you would expect to notice some differences between the groups.
The simple fact is no difference was noted. EXCEPT That people who were A) prayed for and knew it.... turned out to fare worse.
Of course that finding still does not curtail the hubris and arrogance of the theist who likes to tell other people "I will pray for you". The fact the study shows that those words might actually HARM the person you are showing feux concern for gives absolutely no pause it seems to those who really want others to know about their religious practices. By their fruits you will know them indeed. A theist truly invested in the well being of another would pray for that person and NOT INFORM THEM AT ALL that they are doing so. That, given the findings, would be the moral thing to do.
But I feel for many theists they are more interested in virtue signalling. It is not the well being of the recipient that interests them. Or the relationship with god. Or being a good or moral person. No.... the motivation for them is that people KNOW they are going to pray to god. And that says more about such theists and their character and moral system than I reckon they intended.antiskeptic wrote: »Or how about his citing research showing that, at root, human morality is the same the world over when you strip out religious, educational, societal, etc influences. He is trying to make the point that there is a common (naturalistic) ancestor which confounds the myriad of moral systems which are to be found across the worlds religious systems. Yet the Bible says the very same thing
Here again you are doing the same thing I noted above. I asked you DIRECTLY to cite passages or words from the man backing up the claims you set up and knocked down in post #1014. Rather than do this you are continuing to jump on OTHER claims you feel has has made, nothing whatsoever to do with anything you wrote in #1014. And again you are doing so without citing a single word the guy actually said/wrote.
This is just a gish gallop of dodges from you in other words. You are NOT at all backing up post #1014 in any way whatsoever as you were directly asked to do so. Instead you appear to think that writing a long wall of text populated with irrelevant tangents.... that maybe no one would notice.
I call foul on that dishonestly alas.
But yes it is always a good thing to find common ground between groups that disagree. It is a tactic and rhetorical tool I use whenever possible in fact. I used it A LOT during the abortion referendum debates for example. And I was given a lot of credit by people on both sides for doing so in fact, even people who disagreed with my pro choice stance strongly.
So yes it is good that both the atheists and the theists agree there seems to be a common morality in play. And we can examine why that might be. The difference between Dawkins/atheists and you/theists can be summed up in occams razor. In that we tend to ascribe the explanation for this common morality in arguments, evidence and data that exists and we can point to. Whereas you simply invent a "god" to explain it without offering a shred of evidence (despite being asked, including by me, innumerable times for some) that this god actually exists at all.
The simple fact remains however that one does not need to invent the supernatural in order to explain and understand that morality.
However I would edge caution into this too before we assume a common morality. In fact the common morality only appears to exist at the extremes. On things like rape, murder, torture. As we move down the continuum of morality away from the extremes to things like theft and lying for example..... morality becomes much more divided and a lot less universal. The problem is when we move to discuss morality, we tend in discourse to run automatically to the extremes.
Also many of the things you list are not "morals" but "emotions". You listed for example cowardice, jealousy, love, sympathy, joy and so on.... these are not morals or morality. They are emotions. And I utterly reject the idea that any emotion is bad or good. People like to tell us "love" or "sympathy" or "happiness" are good and "hate" or "jealousy" or "anger" are bad for example. I think that is utter tripe nonsense. Emotions in and of themselves are neither good nor bad.
And who says "gossip" is automatically a bad thing for example? I certainly do not.antiskeptic wrote: »Which is to side step the point. The point is that the sheer variation is pointed to as a problem. When it need not be a problem
Bit rich given the complete gish gallop of side steps and dodges you spewed above! But no I do not see it as a side step at all but an important clarification. The analogy builds into it a dangerous assumption that the car crash even happened. The only way to make the analogy valid is to point out that regardless of which group of witnesses you believe one person to fall into.... the "real" ones or the tag along ones.... the simple fact is that neither you, nor they, nor anyone you or they communicate with..... has the first shred of evidence any car crash happened in the first place. And that is an important distinction that does not get hand waved away just because you really really really really wand to hand wave it away.antiskeptic wrote: »Anyway, the point was made that it can't be helped. If the nature of the beast is that different folk will view God in different ways, in the event he exists, then so be it. There is nothing necessarily amiss with that. Even if that's inconvenient to a mindset that likes everything boxed off as a scientific truth.
But it does not negate someone writing a book that encompasses the predominant and most numerous concepts of what this "god" is. The fact that no one book can be all inclusive without going into innumerable volumes in length does not negate a word written in the book itself.
If you have a concept/definition of god that is not included in that book then so be it. There is nothing necessarily amiss with that. Even if that's inconvenient to a mindset that likes everything boxed off as beyond sceptical rebuttal solely because that mind is "anti sceptic" and simply wants assertion to be beyond response.
But if you have a definition or concept of god not include in that book then that rebuts NOTHING in the book. It just means that despite years of asking for it we are sitting here STILL waiting for you to offer your definition and STILL waiting for you to substantiate the existence of the thing so defined.
And I am a patient man. I will keep asking for it and I will keep waiting. Maybe some day you will actually man up and engage.antiskeptic wrote: »Not that science itself isn't an evolving picture in which previous models get overturned in the path towards the summit.
At the fringes it does, but not so often at the core. Anti science types do like to spin the fact science sometimes gets it wrong and then rights those wrongs as if it is somehow a mark AGAINST The credibility of science. The fact is it is exactly the opposite. A system of belief that is based on proving itself wrong and working towards the truth in iterations is much more credible and honest than one that claims some core truth was "revealed" int he beginning and is eternal.0 -
-
Too many quotes in a post dissection makes it impossible to read and reply to. So forgive me if I reduce your 17 of them down to something more manageable. I generally try to limit myself to 5, though sometimes I fail. But like any rhetorical tool, proper use adds clarity and over use adds obfuscation. So I will aim for a target of 10 for now and see if I can whittle it down further as conversation progresses.antiskeptic wrote: »Did Dawkins cite the actual arguments scripture is making or did he just broad brushstroke his way through the Old Testament in search of a quote to mine? He says he doesn't intend to. Amazon Look Inside page 14 is a reference you can look up if you like. As unwilling as Dawkins says he is. What's good for the goose isn't for the gander?
Again no. You are putting words in his mouth and I am asking you to cite exactly what you are referring to to ensure that you are representing him correctly. If you will not cite what you are talking about the "Go to google and find my evidence for me" approach is one that has been rejected on this forum multiple times before. You are now asking ME above what he cited or did not cite??? You are essentially asking me to do your work for you. The rules of this forum were once edited to deal with this approach of being asked for evidence multiple times, and abjectly refusing consistently to provide it.
No thanks, no way, no how. If YOU want to reply to something HE said then cite him. Do not ask me what he did or did not do/say/cite. That is just profoundly dishonest and deflectionary from you.antiskeptic wrote: »It would depend on who the theologian intended his treatise at. If at someone who started from the position of God's existence, then no need to entertain the notion that he doesn't.
Fair enough if a theologian argued for the existence of God and assumed the existence of God at the outset. By all means ignore that. But if someone has no need to suppose God's non-existence for the intended audience, then what of it. Again, I take The God Delusion approach. Caricature Christianity can be added to the 33,000 versions you say already exist.
Yet you have not shown any one actually is making a caricature. You just claim they are and then when asked to cite anything they actually did/said you deflect and refuse. I am not willing to take YOUR word for it as to what someone elses position is or is not. If you want to rebut something someone said then start by showing they actually said it, what they said, and in what context. Then we can talk like actual adults.
But yes you almost make my point for me above when you talk about who the intended audience of a treatise is. The intended audience of Dawkins book was people who are unsure of whether there is a god or not, or who think there might be but are unsure WHY they think there might be. Therefore his position is a useful one, that the Theologians he took the most seriously in the context of his book were the theologians who did not start with that existence as a given. And that is perfectly ok as an approach. So his algorithm for how he chose which Theologians to lend credence to IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS BOOK, is a valid and defensible one.antiskeptic wrote: »You've read the book. Do you deny
I deny nothing. I said clearly already it is over 10 years since i read the book and that I do not remember him saying the things you are claiming he said. Therefore I am merely asking you for citations because I am not convinced you.... having admitted to not actually really having read the book yourself at all in the first place let us not forget....... are remembering or representing his positions accurately or with good faith.
Until such time as you show me what you think he actually said, I can neither confirm NOR deny any ideas.Not his and certainly not yours.antiskeptic wrote: »It's an argument you've used yourself here with your 33,000 derivations.
That is not an argument I made no. I MENTIONED the number of derivations. But I was not making the argument you just pretend I was while doing so. This is another in a long line of discussions with you therefore where I am left unconvinced that when you summarise the arguments another person has made.... that you will do it honestly, accurately, or in good faith. Which is why I am demanding you cite what was actually said, rather than just tell us what you think the author said/meant.
When you here, in black and white, demonstrably in front of everyone the willingness to entirely mischaracterise the arguments I made TODAY.... I think it understandable therefore that I might be highly dubious that you are accurately and honestly representing the arguments of someone from over a decade ago in a book you admit you did not really read.antiskeptic wrote: »Why do they suppose that? On what basis would one suppose the effect of prayer is open to scientific enquiry?
If you stamped around the woods in search of a reported lesser spotted peregrine sparrow and found none, you, by your way of thinking, would conclude there were none.
More misrepresentation of my positions and thinking from you here too. The list grows ever longer.
If something has an actual effect in our world then of course it is open to scientific inquiry. If the effect is not observed that does not mean an effect is not there of course. No one claimed otherwise despite your straw manning here above. I struggle to think of a single case where you ever wrote something like "by your way of thinking" and then actually wrote something I genuinely think.
I think you are a complete lay man to science so your errors are forgivable. I can 'splain it to ya better so you get hip to the realities though. If someone things that X has an effect in our reality we can use the tools of science to try and observe it. We will either observe it and confirm there is likely to be an effect, or we can fail to observe it and therefore say nothing more than there is a complete lack of evidence it has an effect. We can therefore conclude safely it has no effect and operate under that ASSUMPTION. But that is not the same as us stating categorically is has no effect. It is us stating that it has been shown to have no effect and then proceeding under that rubric.
It is similar to the theists coming peridically into this forum and claiming that "Atheism" means we actively believe there is no god. And that this is a faith position. Despite atheists then lining up to deny that that is their position, that their position is that they do not believe there IS a god and that FUNCTIONALLY this means they operate under the narrative/rubric there is none.
Either praying for people to recover from illness has an effect (sometimes, or always)..... or it has no effect. That question is open to scientific inquiry. I explained in the previous post how. And the results of that inquiry SO FAR has been that A) no effect of prayer has been observed at all and a negative harmful effect of TELLING people they are being prayed for showed up in the results.
So please do not presume to tell me what my way of thinking concludes. If you want to know what my way of thinking will conclude, have the decency, decorum, honesty, and adult strength of character to ASK me. I know what and how I think. You.... demonstrably..... do not.antiskeptic wrote: »That is precisely the term I was looking for to describe The God Delusion! You don't remember his citing that research and drawing the conclusion he drew about a common ancestor in the naturalistic evolutionary line? I call that poor memory. The book clearly didn't have much effect on you.
You can "call it" whatever you like, that does not make it so. All you do in the words above is fling out a string of labels. Once again neither showing the labels stick, or citing a single thing to back up the claims you make on behalf of another. Your ENTIRE MO in this discussion is to put as many words in the mouths of others as possible without once acquiescing to a single request you show those words actually came from there.antiskeptic wrote: »You miss the point again. The point was that the Bible concludes in a common morality with a single source. Whereas Dawkins was Occam's Razoring his way to a score in pointing to the multitide of religions multi-moralities.
You no understanding my point is not the same as me missing yours. Your point is perfectly clear, it is just nonsense. The simple fact is that both groups appear to look at a common shared morality and engage in theorising as to the explaination/reasons for the existence of it. However one group does so by recourse to evidence we actually have. The other group does so by simply making stuff up that they then.... as evidenced by people like yourself.... entirey refuse to substantiate the existence of entirely.
However you are most disingenuous with the "we already knew that" nonsense about the Bible. As if the bible knew it long before science did or something. That is not an accurate narrative. It is not that science some how did not know it when the bible did. It is that science more recently explored the WHY of it.antiskeptic wrote: »And so we move into cultural influences and the like: the owner of a bazaar in the Middle East will throw his hands up in horror and say that your offer of 90% of his asking price is the most insulting offer he has ever had in his whole life. He is lying but it is not lying of the lying that mankind shares a common view on. Lying to deceive for self-serving end and at cost to another is commonly detested (even though we do it ourselves when it suits us)
So you say. Jealousy brings seething hatred. The person of whom you are jealous is murdered in your heart. And out of the heart comes actual murder. And whilst jealousy festers there, your own mind is darkened. Not bad you say...
You talk about all of the above as if they are some sort of given. That is just your fantasy and little more. They are not at all a given. Lying is not always done to deceive for the purposes of self serving, and jealousy does not always lead to hatred or murder or violence.
That is the subjectivity of both emotion and morality and you prove my point for me which is lovely. There are people who argue, sometimes quite convincingly, that we should NEVER lie. Ever. In any context. Sam Harris wrote a free to download book on that very argument for example. But others argue the opposite that there are situations where it would be absolutely the wrong thing to do NOT to lie. So the idea that there is some universal morality is not one I take seriously. At the extremes of morality opinion converges more often that not. But that does not stop it being opinion, and it does not at all make morality objective or universal. Not even a little.
And every emotion whether you would cast them as positive or negative, can lead to positive and negative outcomes. That is why I reject the notion of positive and negative emotions. "Love" is probably the most lauded of "positive" emotions for example. But unrequited love is an example of one of humanities great miseries. "Love" can be stiffling and controlling and harmful. While "Hatred" can motivate people to enact great good and positivity in the world. While "jealously" can motivate a person to extremes of self improvement and self betterment.
It is a nonsense to me that any emotion is cast as positive or negative therefore. Rather the effect IN CONTEXT of any given emotion on a person, and the well being and actions it leads to internally and externally, are the only things that can be evaluated coherently.antiskeptic wrote: »Well since the people are talking of a car crash some time ago and all the physical evidence has long since disappeared, you're out of luck in that department. What Dawkins does is focus on this disparity of view to deny there ever was a car crash. Whereas disparity of view is to be expected in the event of a car crash.
Hardly me that is out of luck given nothing about my world view is couched in evidence I simply do not have. It appears to be your problem not mine therefore. Sorry you are out of luck in that department. The evidence you MOST require to back up your claims on this forum seems consistently from thread to thread to be the evidence you are LEAST likely to actually have.
Above however you once again tell me/us what "Dawkins does" and once again I simply do not know if he does or not. I just know for very justifiable reasons that I do not believe YOU claiming he does this. So once again I have to ask you to cite what you are actually talking about here so I can evaluate for myself what Dawkins actually said or did.
I do not do so any more with any expectation you are actually capable or willing to acquiesce to the request. I do it solely because I believe it to be the right thing to do regardless.antiskeptic wrote: »The concept and definition of God depends on many things but one of them most certainly, is an understanding of what is being said and what is not being said. There is no possible way a cut n' paste of particular morsels is going to in anyway arrive an accurate picture of what is being said: whether reading the Bible or understanding a scientific theory. You have to follow the whole thing, start to finish and then you can at least appreciate and evaluate for yourself.
All of this is just hand waving justification for you dodging what is being asked of you. If YOU think there is a god and wish to discuss that (if, no one is saying you have to, just saying you never have/could before) then it is on you to define what YOU think you are talking about and what YOUR evidence for it's existence is. The approach of simply declaring it to be so by assertion and fiat and then taking an "anti sceptic" view of people who do not show willingness to simply swallow whatever pill you are selling..... is not going to cut it.
So you can either make elongated excuses for not engaging or defending your world view, or simply be honest about your refusal to do so rather than making hand wavey cop out excuses for your failure.
I can help you if you like. I can use MY definitions as a starting point for you to jump off to your own. I can do this by means of two very simple questions:
1) Do you think the explanation for our universe and our existence within it is due to the decisions and actions of a non-human intentional and intelligent agent?
2) If yes then have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that in fact lends credence to the idea that the explanation for our universe and our existence within it is due to the decisions and actions of a non-human intentional and intelligent agent?
Note you used the word "proof" in your last post. I do not. I stopped using that word in the context of this conversation for very long and contrived and deeply thought out reasons a LONG time ago. I simply matured and grew out of screaming "proof" at theists.antiskeptic wrote: »That mindset is then projected into a view that all reality can be approached in this way.
Again I do not think you represent the thinking of others accurately or fairly or honestly here. It is not that we think that "all reality can be approached this way" so much as we have ZERO reason to A) think all reality can not be approached in the way we so far have, and therefore we will continue to do so until it proves problematic and we have thus far seen no reason to think that the approach of simply making crap up on the spot has provided a shred of utility to anything or anyone.
No one, least of all actual scientists, appear to be acting like the scientific method is completely perfect in all ways. The simple fact is however it has proved the most useful, if not the only, methodology we have thus far of discerning the truth about our reality and so long as it is the only game in town.......... save for the aforementined approach of simply making fantasies up and acting like they are true and then piling derision on anyone being sceptical as a practice.......... it remains all we have to work with.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement