Posts by mistyridge3

ruggedraven36 said:👍 Now those are some real philosophical questions.

And here we go... I'm just sitting here waiting for someone to claim There aren't actually different sciences, just one single truth that covers everything., so I can finally ask But what even defines a dogma? And should we just fire all the PhDs and let the dogmatists run the show instead?

You aren't even making an appeal... ☕

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

Interesting enough.
And here I was thinking math was a science—one of many—and part of the natural sciences group, which makes it a doctrine.
I mean, does a geometric shape need a circle, and does a circle need a geometric shape? Would a geometric shape even be anything more than alchemy if it didn't have a circle? What about a triangle? Would fauna be at the level of alchemy if it didn't have the deer? Or the trees? The liquids? The dew-covered fields?

Does a bear need animals, or does an animal need the bear?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I’m getting some serious clone vibes from you...😁

Yeah, whatever, carry on then... 😁

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It’s the exact same thing that happened the last two times... I'm seriously asking the mods to take a look at 👍

Unbelievable.
Are the forum rules somehow shorter than my grocery list or something?... 😁

E:
By the way, it's Adis Šabović, not Šabović Adis. 😛