Theme: Science

SUPERNATURAL LIARS ALL – A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF DEITIES AS SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT

I don’t make errors. It’s my job. My job is to articulate the law that prevents liars (or technically, addicts who lie) from further harm to the population by creating false narratives, of false debts, and false causes.

My principal challenge is in collecting enough errors from an individual that I can thoroughly falsify is or her methods of lying by identifying (a) means of lying, (b) motive for lying (c) opportunity to engage in the lie – where opportunity is simply demonstrated by the act of attempting to argue with me.

1. Define “Scientism”
“The cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.” or “In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism” or” an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific” (taken from wiki – those are the three criteria that I know of. None of which claim scientific claims do not defeat fictionalisms, but that science (social science in particular) may make false or trivial or irrelevant claims.) That is not the case in the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, but between variations in the natural, and normative.

2. —“accept … god exists”–
If one does not place faith in the existence of a deity for which there is no evidence other than human fictionalism. Where as like all ancient anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic pretense of knowledge has fallen to falsehood rapidly under scientific investigation. In other words, if a theory is anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic, and unbound by naturalism (itself counter to anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism), then it corresponds MOST with ignorance, error, wishful thinking, fictionalism and deceit (lying). All such claims are false. We can find NO such claims that are NOT false.

3. —“science”–
Science consists of warrantied due diligence by the exhaustive, systematic, falsification of human tendency to engage in justification of ignorance, knowledge pretense, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalism(sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism) fraud, and deceit.

4. —“empirical facts”—
You did not present empirical facts (theory of an observation of measurement.) You offered opinion on correlation.
You did not state the operational causation for the correlation. You CANNOT prove anything, only falsify the alternatives leaving the most competitive solution (parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, operational, rational choice, reciprocal, complete, limited, fully accounted, and coherent (collectively internally consistent). All non-trivial statements are open to falsification by greater parsimony under realism and naturalism (absent the fictionalisms).

(continued…. in part 2)