1220
Another L for bigotry
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
1220 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
8835 readers
950 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How exactly is it a science? A philosophical persuit? Most definitely and a very serious one at that. But a science? Not sure how the scientific method applies
ngl, I had to google to realize that English word "science" doesn't encapsulate things like mathematics, law, literature..ect. I used a literal translation here, mah bad. I should've said discipline or study here. Thanks for pointing it.
Unfortunately, this happens in English alot. Well have five words to discuss a concept, but all slightly differently and they're not interchangeable
haven't you ever heard of christian science? it's not science either, by scientific standards, but believers LOVE to muddy the waters and cast their FAITH as something tangible, provable, worthy of science.
It's all a distraction, again, from actual science.
yes, theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
If you refute logic/reason cuz you only like science that you experiment on, then you're too caught in the material buddy. Remember that math doesn't seem to follow the scientific method either you know ? Please don't tell me you refute it too.
I notice that the word I know in my language kalam is a little different from theology, but theology is the closest translation I have.
they have to. science keeps painting 'god' into a smaller and smaller corner every day.
LOLOLOL
it's repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it's consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.
this really isn't a discussion I'm interested in continuing.
I feel like I know who you're quoting, and I remember encountering: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
to quote the part that appeals to me:
Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like "if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion". After you've developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn't tell us anything about reality.
idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I'd call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
Yes, few inputs. Not none.
What does strong mean in this context? It's a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn't tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.
hmm, idk, okay.