3 ms·
Yes, some "modern science" is no different from astrology or metaphysics, nothing extraordinary here. Same dogmatic, unproven theological sectarian arguments ab
by lngnmn 10y ago
Yes, some "modern science" is no different from astrology or metaphysics, nothing extraordinary here. Same dogmatic, unproven theological sectarian arguments about abstract concepts and fancy theoretical models.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoThis is literally a case of someone performing a test because the community thought the concept couldn't happen (after some debate). That's pretty much exactly the opposite of dogmatic. Let me ask you this, though: do you have a better idea of how to do science? Because it sounds like you're just whining science isn't perfect and modern science is hard/confusing.
- lngnmn 10y agoThe case of performing a computer simulation, or an empirical experiment?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoEmpirical experiment. Did you even read the article before ranting at the concept?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lngnmn 10y agoHard is not a problem. Confused and socially constructed is. The scientific method is a process of reduction to the approximation the truth (of what is) by systematic elimination of nonsense, which is quite contrary to pseudo-scientific process of piling up speculative nonsense upon nonsense in order to gain a certain social status and funding, which is, by the way, is how theologians and "philosophers" of religion used to get their living.