Iraq was preemptively destroyed as a potential threat (based on lies). They preemptively isolate us as potential COVID carriers (based on lies). Soon enough they'll preemptively execute people as potentially treasonous or whatev. Maybe we should prepreemptively organize some effective rev/solutions?

submitted by JasonCarswell from activistpost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Uh? I fail to grasp what you are stating. Anybody can at least try to learn it. I'm not preventing anyone. I got the manual, trained myself and now I've got a grasp of it, nothing unusual or weird about it. I'm not understanding what you are getting at.

Oh and a science is never up for a critical analysis. A science just IS. Either you know it and you can use it or you don't. Who could ever have a "critical analysis" of Na+Cl = NaCl = salt? This... is beyond me.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Share the science (or even the name of the manual), or it's not authentic open refutable science.

If you don't share the science but claim it is, then I am forced to have a blind faith in your claims and so-called science, aka dogmatic Scientism.

"Oh and a science is never up for a critical analysis."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SCIENCE IS A METHOD AND PROCESS TO FIND KNOWLEDGE.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
2b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
3b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Anything claiming to be science without being provable is SCIENTISM blind faith dogma.

Science is NOT the Tao. Science is NOT the force. Science does not just exist. Nature exists, but nature is NOT science.

Where did you go to school because they utterly FAILED to teach you about science. How old are you? Seriously, you REALLY need to revisit this really basic shit.

ALL SCIENCE is based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of which you clearly know nothing about. THAT is the ONLY way to your refine the knowledge to become irrefutable - because it must ALL BE REFUTED until only the truth remains.

If it can't be refuted (due to censorship, privacy, proprietary corporate ownership, university paywalls, copyrights, patents, etc.) then it's NOT authentic transparent open science - it's just blind faith scientism dogma.

Sadly our world is full of scientism and that's why giant corporations can poison people with radiation, big pharma, and their privatized "medicine" for profits without accountability other than their say-so.

Study hard : https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientific+method

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Actual science itself cannot ever be under critical analysis. How could it be? The APPLICATION or would-be application of science, or its principles might be, but not the science itself. What critical analysis is there to make about the fibonacci series? There isn't one. There can't be. Science is factual. One cannot do a critical analysis of a given fact, because a fact is, by definition, factually true and as such, not open for debate. Same with science.

I am sorry you feel I am not being clear, but it is you who aren't being clear. You did not write about a critical analysis of a scientific reasoning or application of said science, but about science itself. That is like having a critical analysis of the on/off state of an incandescent light bulb. It doesn't happen. You look at it, no light? It's off. Light? It's on. Nothing to debate. Science itself is like that.

Application, theories, then yeah that can be subject to a critical analysis by other experts in the field. But somebody who isn't an expert can't discuss it. For example, if I ask you to discuss (or perform a critical analysis) of mathematicians' view of the consequences for future developments of theoretical mathematics of the fairly recent demonstration of Fermat's last theorem, what can you say? Most likely, NOTHING because you are not a mathematician. But again, the mathematics themselves either work or they are erroneous and there is no debate to be had on that question. It's the same with every science: it obeys fixed laws. They aren't up for debate, as they make up the science itself, which can be used to prove its own cogency.

As for your would-be comments on my person and true ability for science, you know nothing about that.

Lastly, the site where I got the manual is here: http://www.revolutiondesprit.com

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You are being idiotic shooting off about things you don't understand.

Clearly you didn't read about the scientific method - or scientism. And the language of math is NOT science, though it is used in science.

Science is NOT factual, it is an ongoing process of elimination. SCIENCE can NEVER be settled. That is bullshit Climate Change Scam propaganda.

Facts are malleable and often subjective to limited perspectives.

I recommend you shut up before I expose you to be ridiculed by drawing attention on SaidIt to your absurdist concepts. If you feel confident enough then let's take this to the people to laugh at your word salad garbage. That's how fucking confident I am.

Thanks for finally sharing the site. It looks like new age woo, but that's just a simple superficial assessment without merit. Unfortunately I can't read French fluently and don't trust auto-translations enough to bother translating it all slowly myself. You've already proven you have faulty thinking so I'm not going to bother delving deeply.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You are confusing the nature of science itself with the scientific process.

When you state "science is (...)" you are, willingly or not, describing THE NATURE OF SCIENCE itself. If you wish to talk about the scientific PROCESS, then you must state it explicitly or else there can be confusion.

Right now you are wording sentences as talking about the NATURE OF SCIENCE but while meaning to talk about THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC research, discovery, etc.

Nature of a thing. Process of doing a thing. Not the same phenomena. You need to communicate more clearly. Reread what you wrote. Hopefully you can extricate yourself enough from what you MEAN to actually READ what is written (by yourself) a bit more objectively.

And there's nothing new-agey about the material, but I agree that a cursory look will yield that impression.

EDIT: Also, you begin by discussing the NATURE of Psience as an actual science, and as demonstrated in my example using Fermat's last theorem, you cannot discuss the scientific PROCESS of a science you know nothing about. Which leaves us discussing the NATURE of Psience as a hard science. And then you keep the wording as if you were discussing its nature as a science, but come back with retorts that I am not properly discussing the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, which cannot be discussed between a practicioner of a science and a lay person.

That leaves us nowhere but you insulting my intelligence. Very cute, but extremely harmful to the quality of the conversation. But go ahead, accuse me of that. It's also cute.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Feel free to weigh in:
/s/AskSaidIt/comments/3y8v/saiditors_ive_debated_what_science_means_with_one/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah, so cute! Going to go to the mob, see which one is more popular. Lovely. You must aspire to become a politician.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you say so. The mob is not always correct. The leader is not always correct. No one is always correct.

That's why science is never settled. Even IF climate change was actually supported by 97% of climate scientists (which it isn't) there is still room for research and further exploration.

I'm confident that I'll have the majority on my side, assuming anyone bothers to notice that post. Doesn't make me 100% correct, but it might make you think and maybe someone can explain it better to you. Or on the chance I'm wrong, maybe I can learn something.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh you are definitely wrong.

The scientific NATURE of a discipline is not the same concept as the scientific PROCESS as it applies within a discipline, using its fixed and unalterable laws.

That you fail to grasp this is the entirety of the whole argument closed in my favor. /thread.