288
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn’t Need Your Belief. (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

So you can't actually support your position, only point out I'm supporting mine. That's... Interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I did support mine, and never said you're not supporting yours, just that you misunderstand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I didn't say you said I wasn't supporting mine. Now I'm not sure you've really read carefully anything I wrote.

    And you simply keep asserting your idea. Ignoring most of my arguments, examples, and questions. For instance, when I asked for the actual specific definitions you claim you and science use, you didn't provide them. Instead you ignored the most basic request for evidence possible, and suggest I'm being dogmatic in my belief, instead of you. As I said, that's interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I figured that was a typo because I wasn't pointing out that you were supporting your point. I did provide the links you asked for. I didn't even derail the conversation to point out that you think philosophy is a science. It's not, in a traditional sense. But it does highlight some fundamentals of why these concepts are difficult for you. You'll want to see or believe what you want, even if it's to intentionally miss the point apparently. Like I said, good luck to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Ah! Admittedly I didn't look at the second two links. You gave no description of what they were. I simply looked at the first and assumed the others were in the same vein.

    And I was essentially correct in thinking you included the epistemology in the definitions of Believe and Accept. You could have simply said as much. And with those definitions you are correct.

    I also didn't realize Epistemology was considered an area of philosophy, not science. Thank you.

    Now I see where you're coming from and I appreciate that. Thank you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent