You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming

You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming the failure of philosophers to define science and the scientific method – by defining it and explaining it. I’ve never seen anyone both understand my work and disagree: science consists of the process of producing testimony that incrementally discovers first principles (causality).

Some people ( and I understand them) are raised in a religious tradition, and maintain the moral intuitions they were indoctrinated into, while granting superiority to the evidence of causality (realism and naturalism) find no conflict between those moral rules and natural laws.

Conversely, I can quite easily explain why you err in your obsessions. And why all those like you require a childish need for certainty that you can ascertain, instead of maturing into an adult need for actionability while maintaining both humility, skepticism, and optimism that one’s konwledge will improve.

You demonstrate neigher humility, nor skepticism, nor optimism despite the evidence that the method of producing testimony that europeans developed in court in matters of dispute and extended to all experience outside of court – which we call ‘science’ – has reduced your supernatural lies to mere children’s parables.

Reply addressees: @Schwall_ins_All @therealbaldtim @sbrandmusic @meharmsen @RichardDawkins