Are science and philosophy mutually exclusive practices?

I would think that when a discipline uses something as ambiguous as the #1, as a starting proposition with no reference to anything other than a mental abstraction, the gap between philosophy and science seems to be more about utility.

Take a look at the incessant search for the Big bang's starting point, presupposing what nature denies existence.
It almost reminds me of the search for the one and only God.

The same principles pas on, in a secular form, from Religion to Progressive Humanism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Er, quite.



WTF are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mythologies.

How sexual roles become social gender roles...how astronomy turns into psychology...how Christianity is morphed into secular humanism, sometimes becoming Communism...or how fear pushes the ones that might expose it away...hoping they will stay there.


I enjoy the fact that this forum has dedicated itself to the modern form of faith...still opining over the missing particle, the indivisible kind...or the absolute zero temperature or the definition of the #1, without resorting to philosophical and artistic contrivances.

When God is dead, the children feel afraid...so they run to the nearest authority. The man with the nice white uniform.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Huh?

Ah, someone else who doesn't know.

Yeah.
Do you practice being obscure for the sake of it?

 

I smell a troll.

 

Yeah, moi aussi.

 

It would appear that these forums are no more than gathering posts for the fragile and those who have succumbed to the ways of modernity...censoring included.

Is "troll" a way of demising anyone who does not follow your common codes or that does not share your pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-altruistic sensibilities?

it would explain the constant banter about moderation excesses, no?

Unbeknownst ot me there is at least one person who claims that the Holy Grail of science has been discovered, the indivisible particle.
Religion can come in so many forms.

But we can call anything a particle, can we not?
Just as we can call anything a one.
Both being human mental constructs, meant to make sense of a fluid world.

Maybe this absolute point of a start, the famous zero point of the Big Bang can be attributed to your Jude-Christian ethics and how beginnings and ends must follow.

I suspect that the mere mentioning of race or sexual differences can cause a stir, as it goes against official doctrine and it must be censored and dismissed as primitive or, harboring vile intents, as in "Troll".

Every age has its high priests and its common mythologies, and all of them were run by sad, bit-players, doing their duty in obscure places like these where only the like-minded were let in for the fear of hurting someone.

Is not the only acceptable reality the one in which nobody gets hurt?

And he who dares to say anything that might hurt someone, anyone, must be governed by hate...is this not so?

 

Really? If it's unknown to you why do you say that there is? :shrug:
Link please.

Nope.

Nope.

The rest... lots of nothing.

 

I also claim there is no God...would you like a link to that?

Everyone needs a faith...and you've found yours.

Perhaps in SueprStrings you might catch a glimpse of the poetic...and the philosophical.

 

Support at least.

Apparently you can't read.

If you mean Superstrings you could be right. Do you mean the book or the "theory"?

 

then you can support your claims by showing me a particle.

Ddi you just insult me?

Should I report this kind of behavior or are you special and exempt from being called a "troll"?

I'm sensing that you are one of the smarter ones around here.
Am I trolling now?

Man, you have a difficult time focusing, don't ya?

What are we trying to discuss here?
Go with that.

I'll wait for the indivisible particle and a better definition for the #1 than the ambiguous "it is mathematical".

 

Try again: the initial claim was yours.

I'd still like to know how can you state this if it's unknown to you.

Nope, I made an observation. You claimed that I've "found my faith". If you'd bothered reading any of my posts then you'd realise you're wrong.

You're not far off.

Nope, but you appear to have difficulty in getting across whatever point you're trying to make.

I dunno. Where did "poetry" come into it?

I have no idea why you persist in this "indivisble particle" nonsense, or #1. maybe you'd be better off on another forum.

 

Are you trolling or do you have a dyslexia problem?

I call the attention of the gifted staff to this troll who claimed that a particle can be produced and now is unable to offer any supporting evidence.

How is asking for proof of a negative your idea of thinking?
You claim faith ni the fambled particle...which I'm sure you've heard about or have been shown pictures of....streaks of it anyhow...so present the evidence.
This entire forum is dedicated to science and this excludes all thoughts which cannot produce adequate supporting evidence, right?
So, while you include religion and can seriously debate that childishness, you censor all other topics on the grounds that they might "hurt someone" or by projecting motives, such as in "trolling".

I'm just trying to figure out what the average I.Q. around here is.

Referring me to sources only accentuates your inability to produce an argument.

Ah, so this forum is not interested in understanding reality...but only in repeating the mantra from the "proper" authorities?

 

Dyslexia? And no, I'm not trolling.

Um, no. You stated that unbeknown to you that this is the case.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You ALSO failed to highlight who made this claim and where.

Huh? You're the one that asked for a negative proof.

Fail again. (Remind me though, who's got the dyslexia?).
I have no idea as to what you're talking about with regard to this "fambled particle".

I've referred you to sources... where?
And a close miss on the "inability to produce an argument". Maybe you should check why sources are required.

And another failure to get the point.
Doing rather well, aren't you?

 

I think you are.
I was banned for posting insinuation like yours.

I was accosted before being banned by someone telling me that "I hadn't heard" about the particle then.

Was that not you?

I ask for evidence that would make science, in regards to human nature and cosmology, anything more than a glorified faith based discipline.

 

Insinuation?

Anda again you fail to highlight who or where.

Yeah? And how do you know this?
"Faith-based discipline"?

 

I am forbidden from linking.

Reading some of the topic on this forum.

 

You're not forbidden from typing a name and thread title/ page/ post number.

In other words, not much...
You seem to have taken this particular topic as truthful while dismissing any other.
That would be because...? Why?

 

sciforums SciForums.com : Philosophy : General Philosophy
I will be impressed when scince can create matter.

#165

Using you to make a greater point to more than one person here.

This place is a cesspool of censorship.

 

Yep, like I said earlier:

The claim you made in post #28 (this thread)

is false.

What WAS claimed is:

Not one mention of "indivisible".
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2817345&postcount=165

And the point would be that you can't read I presume?

Another fail, but never mind.