The purpose of rational philosophy,like religion before it,like jewish law before it,was invented to lie. Science is the language of truth.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-07 07:46:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717981858961686528
Theme: Science
-
I am very clear that I am talking about science (truth) and you are talking herm
I am very clear that I am talking about science (truth) and you are talking hermeneutics (justification).
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-07 07:39:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717980167809933312
Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717979182291034112
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717979182291034112
-
I claim a demonstrated necessity. ie: science. An inescapable law. You are welco
I claim a demonstrated necessity. ie: science. An inescapable law. You are welcome to attempt to disprove this law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-07 07:38:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717979799898169344
Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717978918800633856
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717978918800633856
-
If you mean, can Natural Law (necessary rules of cooperation) be reduced to surv
If you mean, can Natural Law (necessary rules of cooperation) be reduced to survivable scientific propositions, then yes.;)
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-07 07:16:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717974330165084160
Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717973480751271936
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717973480751271936
-
(a) you probably don’t know that you just used unscientific language (b) I am a
(a) you probably don’t know that you just used unscientific language (b) I am a bag of mostly water. (c) I think and do. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-07 07:15:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717974017563566080
Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717973480751271936
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717973480751271936
-
You can speak truth in nearly every language, from sentimental to scientific. Bu
You can speak truth in nearly every language, from sentimental to scientific. But you can’t easily speak deceit in the scientific. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-04 08:30:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/716905820622102528
-
You can speak truth in nearly every language, from sentimental to scientific. Bu
You can speak truth in nearly every language, from sentimental to scientific. But you can’t easily speak deceit in the scientific. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-04 04:30:00 UTC
-
No Free riders. No forgiveness. No tolerance. No more parasitism. No more fraud,
No Free riders. No forgiveness. No tolerance. No more parasitism. No more fraud, pseudoscience, or lies. No more genocide. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-03 16:32:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/716664629229916160
-
HOW KNOWLEDGE IMPROVES —“sometimes what works satisfyingly for a time is subse
HOW KNOWLEDGE IMPROVES
—“sometimes what works satisfyingly for a time is subsequently found replaceable by something that works even better — for example, the discovery that Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics that holds exactly only in the limit of v approaching zero, but is “good enough”— Frank Lovell
Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics where v approaches zero.
This does not mean newtonian mechanics are false.
As far as I can tell this tends, more often than not, by far, to be the method by which knowledge evolves. And I very much like Frank’s terminology here since it avoids the fallacy of treating knowledge (actions that produce desired outcomes) and logic (internally true or false) as bound by the same criteria. THEY ARE NOT.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-03 06:21:00 UTC
-
If your concept of god is “him who created the rules of the universe”, then if P
If your concept of god is “him who created the rules of the universe”, then if Physical law, Natural Law, Common Law, Norms, Traditions, Myths and Rituals are identical, then man has followed the commands of god and become one with god’s deigns.
And only evil does otherwise.
Any religion incompatible with physical and natural law is not divine: it is either error or the work of the devil.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-03 05:50:00 UTC