You mean the individuals like Aristotle, Machiavelli, Newton, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Maxwell, Einstein, Watson and Crick?
Or do you mean like the group-thinkers like the Abrahamic faiths, the marxists, neo-marxists, postmodernists, HBD-science-denialists?
See the pattern? 😉
Reply addressees: @Sarpicus @ramzpaul
Theme: Science
-
You mean the individuals like Aristotle, Machiavelli, Newton, Smith, Hume, Darwi
-
(I built one of the largest privately-held tech consultancies in America, and tw
(I built one of the largest privately-held tech consultancies in America, and two others, and retired in my forties, and since then produced the completion of the scientific method and the formal logic of law. Do not overestimate your abilities until you exhaust all fields.)
Reply addressees: @Sarpicus @ramzpaul -
(I built one of the largest privately-held tech consultancies in America, and tw
(I built one of the largest privately-held tech consultancies in America, and two others, and retired in my forties, and since then produced the completion of the scientific method and the formal logic of law. Do not overestimate your abilities until you exhaust all fields.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-12 16:26:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315690199419150342
Reply addressees: @Sarpicus @ramzpaul
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315688749892853760
-
“Only 40 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution — a figure lower th
—“Only 40 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution — a figure lower than in any European country.”—
Is this true?
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-06 20:59:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313584689253318657
-
“Only 40 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution — a figure lower th
—“Only 40 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution — a figure lower than in any European country.”—
Is this true? -
6. My criticism of Christianity is that the means of indoctrination into (a) the
6. My criticism of Christianity is that the means of indoctrination into (a) the empathic imitation of Jesus treatment of others, or (b) the rational adoption of the scientific statement of those ethics, (c) relies upon and teaches the Abrahamic method of deceit (and ignorance).
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 19:30:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837502319853575
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837500763865088
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with natural law and the only known via-positiva enhancement of it. (And the optimum advice (philosophy) for the weak, the dim, and the meek is to follow that strategy because they will do least harm.)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1312837500763865088
-
6. My criticism of Christianity is that the means of indoctrination into (a) the
6. My criticism of Christianity is that the means of indoctrination into (a) the empathic imitation of Jesus treatment of others, or (b) the rational adoption of the scientific statement of those ethics, (c) relies upon and teaches the Abrahamic method of deceit (and ignorance).
-
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with natural law and the only known via-positiva enhancement of it. (And the optimum advice (philosophy) for the weak, the dim, and the meek is to follow that strategy because they will do least harm.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 19:30:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837500763865088
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837499140661249
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a via-negativa science of what not to do. It is counter-intuitive, and non-obvious (and therefore unique) to EMPIRICALLY exhaust forgiveness of another INDIVIDUAL before determining that effort futile.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1312837499140661249
-
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with natural law and the only known via-positiva enhancement of it. (And the optimum advice (philosophy) for the weak, the dim, and the meek is to follow that strategy because they will do least harm.)
-
0. I can’t figure out why this is so hard to understand, or if people are willfu
0. I can’t figure out why this is so hard to understand, or if people are willfully ignorant, or addictively deceptive (in denialism).
1. Christian ethics can be stated scientifically and I have done so. … https://twitter.com/bishkebab4/status/1312791345015091200
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 19:30:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837493360930818