I don't know what to tell you, man. I’ve been watching this play out for a minute now, and honestly? It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash on the I-95. You see it coming, you know it's gonna be messy, but you just can't look away because the sheer stupidity of the situation is almost impressive. It’s one of those things where you realize some people just aren't playing the same game as everyone else. They're out here playing checkers while the rest of us are deep into high-stakes chess, or maybe even something more complex than that. And let's be real—it's exhausting trying to make sense of it all when the logic is basically non-existent. It's like trying to follow a GPS that keeps rerouting you into a lake. Just total nonsense. kaže: Look, I’m asking you a dead simple question here—do you actually have anything on your side that performs better than science? Seriously.
Look, you’re dead wrong... this isn't some debate about science or medical breakthroughs. It’s about how the whole damn system is rigged from the top down. The way our society is set up dictates exactly what healthcare looks like, why it exists, and how they treat you. The people running the show? They don't give a single damn about preventative care for you. Why would they? Keeping you healthy and proactive doesn't line their pockets. Their entire business model relies on having a doctor slap a handful of pills in your hand just to keep you functional enough to clock in every day. Then, once you hit retirement age and stop being a walking paycheck, you become nothing but a massive liability on their balance sheet. In their eyes, it’s actually more profitable if you just kick the bucket as soon as possible. This has zero to do with "science"—it's pure, cold-blooded math.
Look, being "cultured" doesn't mean you actually know anything. It’s a total scam. People act all high and mighty about their refined tastes while they're busy being short-sighted, selfish pricks who strip-mine every natural resource in sight just to line their pockets today—completely ignoring the fact that they're basically stealing the future right out from under our kids. It's pure greed, plain and simple. 🤷
Look, let me put this bluntly—you’re basically trying to blame science for your own massive screw-ups. It's like someone crashing their car into a hydrant and then pointing at the laws of physics like they're the ones who drove the wrong way. You messed up, plain and simple. Stop using "science" as a convenient scapegoat for your own lack of foresight. ☕
Short and sweet. "Laws of nature are simple," people say. Yeah, sure. That’s exactly what you hear from anyone who isn't actually deep in the trenches of real science. It's easy to talk big when you don't have to deal with the actual math.
Look, if you want to build a functioning society, you have to accept one fundamental truth: science isn't just some hobby for nerds in lab coats—it’s the process of uncovering the actual, hard laws of nature. It's objective. Period. It doesn't care about your feelings or your political agenda. If you don't have that specific mental framework—if you can't wrap your head around the fact that reality operates on facts rather than vibes—then you're fundamentally incapable of designing a decent way for people to live together. You'll just end up building a chaotic mess because you're trying to run a country based on wishful thinking instead of how things actually work.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: there is zero inherent rationality or logic baked into science itself. People love to throw around the word "objective" like it's some holy grail, implying that science exists independently of our own flawed, limited perception. But that’s a total myth. In its narrowest sense, science is built on the fundamental assumption that we can somehow "handle" or categorize nature—and that's a massive, built-in bias. Just because people claim this concept doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't right there under the surface. Honestly, if you want the ultimate proof that science isn't truly objective? Just look at the sheer number of people who argue against it. If science were actually objective, it wouldn't have any real opposition in its current state. It would just *be*. The fact that there’s even a debate proves the system is flawed. Is it still useful? Sure. Does it work for us? Absolutely. But don't mistake utility for pure, unadulterated truth.
Edward Flores4 said:You didn't actually give me an answer to that very straightforward question... so let me try this again:
Honestly, looking back at everything we've discussed—and I mean really sitting with the question—I can't help but wonder what exactly you find more valuable than science? It’s such a heavy thought. If you had to pick just one thing, what would you actually put in that "spot" that you feel science doesn't rightfully occupy?
What exactly is science "erasing" that it shouldn't be? I'm curious—what specifically got you so worked up about this?
So, what’s the deal—are we really saying there isn't anyone qualified to step up for this position?
Until you actually give us an answer to that question, your whole critique is pretty much baseless—it’s hard to see any real purpose behind it if we don't have the full picture first.
Honestly, the way you phrased that question is exactly what my problem is with this whole debate. You're asking what we should use to *replace* science, as if science just stepped into some pre-existing slot waiting for it. Replace it with what? Nothing. It's not like science should be swapped out for other roles just because people want to play pretend under the guise of being "objective." Look, I'm not saying I practice some "Eastern" 😁 style medicine, but mainstream American medicine hasn't even bothered to look at preventative care or how someone's mental state and soul can drive physical illness. Our American scientific culture is inherently invasive—you see it everywhere. We treat nature like its resources are infinite, and we treat the human body like a target to be bombarded with chemicals and forced into specific molds through indoctrination. That's just the American tradition. You don't just swap it out, and you shouldn't. But does science itself need a massive overhaul? Absolutely. Don't go thinking it holds all the answers or that it's some perfectly objective tool when it's constantly being used to make these heavy-duty moral, philosophical, and political calls—which is exactly how we ended up in this mess we're in now. So, no, I'm not calling for a "replacement" because that term belongs to our specific cultural framework. If something is broken, you don't just toss it in the trash immediately. It doesn't work like that. And I'm definitely not claiming non-Western traditions are superior either. There, I caricatured it enough for you. Hope that finally answers your question.
Edward Flores4 said:Every single time I see someone start preaching about how "science actually knows nothing," I can't help but wonder—I mean, really wonder—who on earth could possibly claim to know more than what we've gathered through scientific inquiry?
Look, if you or I accept the simple fact that, regardless of its flaws, science doesn't have a viable alternative right now... then sure, we can sit down and talk about the weaknesses in the scientific method. And trust me, it definitely has its fair share of those. But these sweeping, generalized complaints that exist solely to tear science down just to make knowledge seem some sort of mystical, unreachable thing? Honestly, they're completely pointless.
Regardless of the usual gripes against the natural sciences, mainly because they focus on "discovering natural laws," the real issue is that "science," in this narrow-minded sense, gets put on a pedestal as if it's somehow superior to every other discipline, whether qualitative or quantitative. But honestly, the biggest critique—and here's the kicker—is that people forget science isn't designed to answer every single question out there. I mean, the whole idea that failing to explain something means you don't know it is flawed; it just means it's outside your field of study. If science is defined as the systematic attempt to gather knowledge, then anything you don't know is simply your own failure, no matter what methodology you're using. That's why we can't really distinguish between different types of science, and even splitting things into "natural" and "social" sciences leads to disastrous consequences for humanity. Because people view natural sciences as "objective," they often feel there's no need for any other kind of insight. Even when scientists push research to a high level of probability, that's just a tiny step toward implementing those theories into the actual world we live in. And that's where "non-scientific" elements start bleeding in, and people fail to realize they're dealing with real-world stuff and wielding powers they weren't formally trained to handle. Talking about "pure cognition" on its own is just pointless. Hope you guys get what I'm saying.
Thomas Booth5 said:Nah, I don't think so. Metaphysical assumptions are built on speculation—where the whole theoretical base is just more speculation and it's all a priori. But scientific ones? They're based on certainty, predictions, or speculation that actually has an empirical measurement or definition behind it.
Maybe except for quantum mechanics, which has its own brand of metaphysics (someone's probably gonna come after me for saying 🤣). But honestly, it's true. You've gotta start with what's known and measurable.
There are different kinds of assumptions. And I guess, maybe because of how open-minded people can be, they feel allowed to play around with formal logic and build all these wild constructs. 😁
But look, if a rock always falls to the ground (here in the States, under the same atmospheric conditions, etc.), it isn't really an "assumption" to say that if you drop it right now, it'll hit the ground again. That’s just a certainty, not an assumption.
That "certainty" relies on the idea that you can understand the whole set just by looking at a partial piece of it. That's a logical assumption right there. When you say "assumption," you mean you're guessing. The real issue is how we label things as "science." If you want to use the term "science" in the broadest sense possible, fine, I won't argue with you. But seriously, Neanderthals knew that if they threw a rock, it would hit the floor or potentially hurt someone. We don't call them scientists or anything higher than that.
Thomas Booth5 said:But that’s just how science is defined. I don't see the issue here. Like, how do you even "prove" it? If things happen exactly as predicted, then it's proven, over and over again. Is there even another way to have concrete proof besides stuff being true through constant reproducibility?
I mean, you could always assume there might be some theoretical exceptions. That's just a byproduct of how the human mind works, I guess. And more importantly, those aren't actual proofs—they're just assumptions based on what we already know or have proven.
Exactly. Just assumptions. So, by that logic, scientific statements are basically just metaphysical claims dressed up in lab coats.
Edward Flores4 said:Look, nobody is claiming "laws of nature" are identical to man-made laws passed by Congress... but if you drop an object, it ALWAYS falls to the ground. That's clearly some kind of "lawfulness" stemming from the fundamental state of how things work.
So, how else would you label that? Or are you just being critical for the sake of being critical?
Hold up—"natural laws" (and I'm not a huge fan of that phrase) actually make more sense than man-made laws because they're empirically verifiable (if you want to get all technical about it). The real issue is this idea that we shouldn't question reality itself, but rather just how well we can observe it. If you take that logic to its extreme, you end up with some pretty terrifying stuff for humanity. We use concepts—like the whole "stone falling to the ground" thing—that carry meanings tied to entirely different phenomena, yet we keep using them. Back in the day, before everything became secularized, advocating for "science" made sense. But now that "science" has basically turned into a religion, we need to stop pretending it's some objective truth machine that uncovers the secrets of the universe. Look, if we admit humans are inherently biased, why on earth would we believe our perception of the world is purely objective? (And I'm not talking about reality itself, just our view of it). We don't deduce things from reality; we deduce them from our *perception* of reality. Because of that, neither the perceptions nor the conclusions drawn from them can be called "objective." To argue otherwise is basically trying to build "science" on the foundations of metaphysical ontology. Science isn't self-sustaining. So, it doesn't deserve the special, untouchable status it currently holds. Saying "if we throw a rock in the air, it will fall to the ground" is logically identical to saying "if we throw a rock, it will keep moving forward." In the positivist tradition, both statements refer to an entire set of events involving throwing rocks. Neither statement is strictly "true" or "false" because they're describing a massive aggregate of occurrences. This isn't me trying to tear down science just to destroy it; it's about stripping away its unearned privilege. Other traditions of human thought shouldn't be pushed aside. Plus, treating science as this perfectly objective discipline gives scientists a "holier-than-thou" status over everyone else, which—let's be real—they definitely haven't earned.
Edward Flores4 said:Most of the folks hanging out in these forums are just hobbyists too... myself included.
Quincy:
I suppose part of me was right, though—empirical science can never truly deliver absolute, undeniable facts. All we're doing is gathering observations and building theories based on what we've seen; at the end of the day, every science is just a collection of things we've noticed.
Hold on a second... if you drop something, it hits the floor every single time. That can't just be a trick of our perception!
Quincy:
From where I'm standing, there isn't a solid reason to believe that's an objective truth. But then again, like most philosophical concepts, we can't effectively prove it *isn't* the case—it feels pretty similar to solipsism.
The trouble is, it's incredibly easy to cook up a claim that's scientifically impossible to debunk. For instance, if I say "no human being can live forever," I can't technically prove that either, since the statement covers people who haven't even been born yet. But obviously... just because something is unprovable doesn't mean it's true.[/u][/b]
If we're playing by those rules, then science itself can't prove anything either, since it's all just making predictions—basically using observations to guess what happens next. What I'm really calling out here is that positivist approach to science where they take a handful of isolated cases and act like they've discovered "universal laws" as if those things even exist.
Frank Collins85 said:What about the people who tried watching the race "live" through foreign channels, satellite, or streams? That hour-long delay on the local network is just straight-up unbearable.
anyway, the race was a total snooze fest 👎
And why does that even matter to you? If you can't handle a delay without relying on live timing, you probably shouldn't be following Formula 1 anyway.
Just like I thought it would be, there’s basically zero coverage on Haiti in any of the news outlets I’ve been watching lately. It’s like they just stopped talking about it entirely. Does anyone actually know if anything is happening on the ground regarding real, boots-on-the-ground aid? I'm not talking about those cheesy little songs people sing or whatever—I mean actual help.
Look, Red Bull just doesn't have anything on McLaren when it comes to actual race pace. Sure, their car is a beast in qualifying—easily the fastest thing on the grid during those sessions. But McLaren? They absolutely owned the First Qualifying Session and the Second Qualifying Session because they could tweak the setup however they wanted. Once they had to dial everything in specifically for the race, they just lost that edge.
redhawk76 said:True, and one could argue that Franjo Harmon was expected to oversee and regulate all of that simultaneously while he was commanding a war, managing two-thirds of the country under occupation, negotiating with the most cunning heavyweights in global politics, signing treaties, building an entire government and its institutions from the ground up, and securing entry into the UN...
I’m watching this series about Franjo Harmon... and I am trying—unsuccessfully—to imagine Stjepan Mason (dripping with that hindsight bias and a level of resentment that the original leader could never have shared) or anyone else attempting to juggle all these parallel "games." Certainly, any of them would have found themselves with plenty of spare time amidst that avalanche of cascading, increasingly consequential events to sit down and meticulously engineer the most optimal, long-term solutions for the economy and privatization... 🙄
Look, we don't need to turn Franjo Harmon into some kind of saint right now. He was a politician who possessed exactly the qualities needed for that specific moment in history. At the same time, I truly believe he’d be the absolute worst Prime Minister you could pick for today's era. It’s all about the circumstances, and he played his hand when it mattered. But for running a modern democracy? He wouldn't have the toolkit for it. That kind of rhetoric only works when things are in total crisis. In today's world, he’d just be marginalized on the global political stage where we actually need to succeed.
Look, every single society and democracy out there evolved from somewhere else—whether it was an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or some absolute monarchy. You can't just conjure up a functional system out of thin air. Without solid foundations (and honestly, you could argue that having something like 20-30 massive, powerhouse corporations structured this way would be the bedrock), you aren't getting a real democracy. Besides, if America had been a democracy right from the jump, we wouldn't have ended up with this oligarchical, elitist mess. Sure, our version of democracy might have started off a bit shakier than what you see in places like Western Europe, but let's be real: even now, we aren't exactly hitting "gold standard" levels of democracy, though I guess you could say things are starting to look up a little bit.
Look, you have to look at this through the lens of what was actually happening back then. We were in the middle of a war. It’s like if we were in a wartime footing right now—you need decisive leaders just to keep things moving. You can't expect companies to function like standard, boring Wall Street corporations when everything is being upended by conflict. Plus, let's be real: the money was being funneled into weapons through black market deals, which makes any idea of a "normal" privatization process pretty much impossible. Either they shouldn't have even touched privatization at that stage, or they should have done it differently. Honestly? The whole plan was just poorly executed.
I mean, if you’re judging by the gold standard of wealthy dynasties—we're talking the Todorich family here. They’re basically the blueprint for how one of those top 200 families should actually function. It’s just a shame we don't see many more like them 😁
I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁 The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy. So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎 Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...
Man, these divisions get messy fast. Take India, for example. You’ve got Muslims, Hindus, Christians... it’s a total patchwork. And even within the Hindu community, they’re split into endless sub-groups and whatnot. My take? The whole thing is so fractured that tolerance isn't just a nice idea—it's basically their only survival mechanism. Nobody can just break away from the collective because everyone is too deeply woven into the fabric of the nation, yet at the same time, you can't expect everyone to just melt into one big homogenous blob without losing their identity. It's like India is forced into being an incredibly democratic country specifically because there are so many different niche interests that have to be balanced out. No single group can bully everyone else because, individually, their influence is minor compared to the sheer number of other players. I’d bet if China had a democracy, it would look similar. At the end of the day, they’re all just Chinese.
Look, if the ball is dancing right on the opponent's goal line, we're in deep trouble. But if it's dancing on our line? Then we're doing just fine. 😁 That's the bottom line.