Now if only someone would invent time travel I’ll head back and tell the Spartans they don’t have keep infants who won’t grow up to be good warriors alive. It’s ok to kill them. You have to be a modern bioethicist to come up with that idea

Singer has attempted to escape the hypocrite label over his treatment of his mother by saying he’d taken his sister’s preferences into account and might have done differently had it been only his decision.

So I guess we can add “weasel” to his list of virtues.

Current modern day example would be the EM propulsion unit or theory. Which is no longer a theory since experimentation has demonstrated that it works, or at least the conclusions work. Like Newton’s gravity laws. The conclusion is correct, with some exceptions. The people that thought it didn’t work, like Hawking did about Boson Higgs theory, are the retards and the ignorant savages that only think they know what’s going on in this reality. It is far inferior to proof, to experiments that work.

So they were considered nuts, but when their work actually worked in reality, as demonstrated by nature or human experimentation, then it became profitable and society began to acclaim it as a “social feat” demonstrating our vibrancy or technological savvy or something. Wright Brothers were included.

As for quantum mechanics, observers causing causality information to be exchanged is just one way to interpret “magical relationships”. Because other than the immediate transfer of causality from one particle to another via some special method we don’t know about, it’s difficult to grasp quantum entanglement or other quantum mechanics. If causality is not information which can be transferred via a stimulus, then what is behind the “spooky action” of two particles quantum entangled, that is far away from each other, yet which responds at FTL speeds to one particle’s change?

That’s what experimentation is for. For evolution to be more than a theory, some scientist must break the bounds of common sense and mainstream beliefs, to evolve an organism. To Evolve an Organism, in reality, not on a computer screen. The people that can get the job done, are the only ones that can say that they know how it is done. The other Retards around can only copy the work and mouth off.

The Leftists like to use the mystique and authority of science to prop up their political totalitarianism. That’s not the first time people have used that.

As for Singer, to prove his theories right, he would have to experiment. Which is the problem, you see. Because Mengeles was also good at experimentation. The question in ethics is, why would all experiments be a good thing? Should we also make a black hole in the Earth’s crust to see if atomic weapons will be able to close it? What good does it do humanity?

It has little to do with models, and estimates, including quantum physics. The recognition that observation alters a state is related to dependence or connectivity, not to the nature of our system per se. The scientific method was introduced to constrain secular excess following an implicit acknowledgement that the system is incompletely and insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy, and therefore liberal assumptions of continuity and uniformity, misconceptions of correlation as causation, and substitution of inference (i.e. created knowledge) for deduction, cannot be justified and are, in fact, antithetical to science.

The point is that science is established as a logical domain separate from philosophy through a methodical constraint of its frame of reference in both time and space. The accuracy of human perception, both natural and enhanced, is inversely proportionate to the product of time and space offsets from an established frame of reference. That was the impetus for introduction of the scientific method. To constrain secular excess and speculation.

For example, the “Theory of Evolution” is an anthropomorphic overlay and smoothing of an evolutionary process, a physical process, which has a chaotic character. This doesn’t mean that the theory is wrong, but that there is no probable path that would permit application of the scientific method. Instead, it is defended with arguments that rely on liberal assumptions of continuity and uniformity, correlation, and inference from circumstantial evidence outside of a constrained frame of reference.

the truth is that he proved no such thing as no such thing is what is happening.. any point in the universe can be made center in terms of orbits or not…”

I agree that there is a functional model of the solar system which is geocentric. It is called the Ptolemaic System. If that floats your boat – have at it.

Incidentally, I’m sorry I’m not very good at editing before I post things. I hope people can understand what I was trying to say.

n.n Says:
June 23rd, 2015 at 11:45 am
“Dennis:
Science does not have a universal standard for truth. Science’s legitimacy and value is derived from the scientific method that constrains it as a frame-based philosophy.”

I was thinking of the material world itself as the standard of truth. Our interpretations might change, but the underlying reality of the physical universe does not. Of course some folks interpret quantum physics to mean that when a conscious observer observes nature they thereby change it – but the assumption that it takes a conscious observer to collapse a quantum state is probably not accurate.

Artfldgr Says:
June 23rd, 2015 at 1:04 pm
“Science does not have a universal standard for truth. Science’s legitimacy and value is derived from the scientific method that constrains it as a frame-based philosophy.

it does.
its called EMPIRICISM

the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.”

Good point. If one believes as I do that scientific truth is the behavior of the universe itself, then obviously Empiricism is the closest thing a scientist has to universal truth. The rub is that e people people like John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume etc. were so impressed by science that they attempted to universalize science to encompass all human knowledge. As Artfldgr correctly points out that position is an intellectual trap.

Because if that is the case, I have to tell you something. You don’t actually know what you think you know.

A leftist, for example, makes a categorical assertion:

“No men have everlasting souls.”

You politely point out that if this is the case and if they are themselves a member of the class of men, then it obviously follows that …

1. They themselves have no souls and
2, nothing that was previously held to follow from having an everlasting soul can now be said to apply to them from these particular discredited premiss.
3. If they wish to salvage the consoling conclusion that they have objective value and some objective claim to interpersonal consideration and respect, they will have to develop other premisses.
4. They will still then have to argue the soundness of these premisses if they wish to preserve the old conclusion that they have human value in some sense other than mere “utility” to others.

The typical liberal reaction to all this is to first take offense, to next shrug and move on, and then to continue to act as if nothing had ever been said about it in the first place.

Occasionally, and atypically, they will first admit to values nihilism and then move on about the business of willing themselves to power and rhetorically “bringing about the world they dream” without any further bother of justifying as a conclusion what their own assumptions clearly imply cannot be ultimately justified; i.e., that is to say, to be deduced logically.

So: We do all understand don’t we, that their belief (no matter how vague or imprecisely understood) in the so-called fact/value dichotomy, in the mere instrumentality of the faculty of reason, in the existential primacy of will, and in the magical “creative” social power of the spoken word in achieving the only things that matter to them in the final reduction, i.e., the emotional rewards of inclusion, affirmation, ego satisfaction and distracting pleasure, is all that ultimately matters?

To tell Singer that the very principles he announces make him eminently “slay-worthy” is to tell him nothing surprising or new. His aim is not really to argue about these big propositions, but to socially maneuver his preferences into an unchallengeable position.

which is why there is no bacteria on Mercury

but then again… there is no bacteria or life on pluto or neptune…

and i will venture that there will not be any in any Rogue planet that belongs to no solar system…

A rogue planet, also known as an interstellar planet, nomad planet, free-floating planet or orphan planet, is a planetary-mass object that orbits the galaxy directly. They have either been ejected from the planetary system in which they formed or have never been gravitationally bound to any star or brown dwarf. There may be billions of rogue planets in the Milky Way.

given our chicken little nature, i am very surprised that there has been earth X, and meteors and such that would destroy earth.. even rocks tossed from klandathu the bug planet of heinlien…

but no one has made the space horror story of a rogue planet passing through the solar system..

want to talk about a ELE way beyond what we contemplate.. or can you imagine something the size of jupiter barreling through!!!

How big is jupiter? 317 times the mass of Earth
How big is ‘Super Jupiter’? 13 times more massive than Jupiter or 4121 times the size of earth

1,300,000 Earths should fit inside the Sun