Sciences and religions: incompatible!

[Janic]

15/09/23, 21:32
ahmed

Certainly, in themselves, the accumulated facts mean nothing, but in the theory of evolution these facts relate correctly to each other, like the various constituents of a house!

and that’s where the problem lies. We have all, in general, played with legos
Each of these pieces is a fact, to use Poincarre's formula.
Then, from these same pieces everyone can build what their imagination allows them to do and with these same pieces build many other products of their imagination. Assuming that the imagination is drawn to houses, each one will be different from the others with the same "facts".
The problem lies less in the fact that the imagination can theorize on a final result, than in the fact that the researcher constructs working hypotheses, the scientists seize them in the form of a doctrine and the ideologists make a dogma, which which gives:
a)Theories of evolution
b) THEORY OF EVOLUTION
c)theory ofEVOLUTION

We can also apply it to a number of other subjects including one that I particularly like: medicine, for example Pasteur (after Jenner of course!) he puts forward a working hypothesis on rabies (although he is neither a doctor nor a biologist), he discovers a virus and puts forward the idea, again, that it is viruses that cause disease and he makes it a doctrine, (which is not completely false for his time ) and he invented a way to deal with it, the vaccine, and his followers made it a “religious” dogma which currently persists, despite the work of other researchers having demonstrated the scientific insufficiency of his doctrine and his means.


“Don’t believe what I tell you. check it"

[izentrop]

Certainly, in themselves, the accumulated facts mean nothing, but in the theory of evolution these facts relate correctly to each other, like the various constituents of a house!

There you come into his game

on the fact that the researcher constructs working hypotheses, the scientists take hold of themt in the form of a doctrine and the ideologues make it a dogma, Which give:
a)Theories of evolution

Scientific facts are not the simple product of one's imagination, let's see

We can ask the question why it is still called "theory"? ... chatgpt response...
PS: posted for the community, I know you don't do it to an old monkey like you :

The theory of evolution is considered a scientific theory because it is based on empirical evidence and observations. It is also testable and falsifiable, meaning that if new evidence is discovered that contradicts the theory, it can be changed or abandoned. However, the term "theory" does not mean that the validity of the theory is uncertain or that it is not a scientific fact. Rather, a scientific theory is a well-established and widely accepted explanation of natural phenomena that has been confirmed by solid scientific evidence. In other words, a scientific theory is an established scientific fact. The theory of evolution is therefore considered an established scientific fact and widely accepted by the scientific community ²³⁴⁵.

Source: conversation with Bing, 16/09/2023
(1) Why do scientists believe in evolution | Let's talk science. https://parlonssciences.ca/ressources-p ... levolution.
(2) The theory of evolution versus creationism | Cairn.info. https://www.cairn.info/revue-natures-sc ... ge-280.htm.
(3) Biological evolution in theories and facts - CNRS. https://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol ... yader.html.
(4) The theory of evolution is also evolving... - Science and life. https://www.science-et-vie.com/article- ... olue-aussi.
(5) Criticisms of theories of evolution - Wikipedia. https://bing.com/search?q=pourquoi+la+t ... ientifique.
(6) undefined. https://bing.com/search?q=.

[pedrodelavega]

15/09/23, 21:32
ahmed

Certainly, in themselves, the accumulated facts mean nothing, but in the theory of evolution these facts relate correctly to each other, like the various constituents of a house!

and that’s where the problem lies. We have all, in general, played with legos
Each of these pieces is a fact, to use Poincarre's formula.
Then, from these same pieces everyone can build what their imagination allows them to do and with these same pieces build many other products of their imagination. Assuming that the imagination is drawn to houses, each one will be different from the others with the same "facts".

ok, the guy didn't steal anything from the signature he's been sporting for years...
At the same time when you see that the one who quotes Poincaré is the most religious forum,
the one who shits on all sciences and embraces all pseudo-science, that's beautiful.

[Janic]

pedro el zero point

ok, the guy didn't steal anything from the signature he's been sporting for years...

says the one who doesn't understand anything in general!

At the same time when you see that the one who quotes Poincaré is the most religious forum,

stupid thought as usual! Everyone believes whatever the subject and for a guy who believes "religiously" in vaccination in total ignorance of the subject, it's ridiculous!

the one who shits on all sciences and embraces all pseudo-science, it's beautiful

says the one who defecates on sciences other than the pseudo sciences of poison merchants, like AFIS.

PS: before using a word like science, already learn its meaning

Comes from the Greek "epistemé" ("ἐπιστήμη") which means "science", in the sense of the art of skill, as a particular branch of knowledge, differently from the Greek word "mathema" (μάθημα) which, it concerns what is learned and through that is known (the Greeks call "mathanaô" the physical sciences as...

or:

What is the etymology of the word science?
Etymology: from Latin scientia, knowledge, scientific knowledge, theoretical knowledge, science, itself derived from scire, to know, to know, to have knowledge of, to be informed of, to learn.

and why not this:

What is science according to philosophy?
Science is demonstrative knowledge of causes and, therefore, universal and necessary. This is the reason why Aristotle will affirm that there is no science except of the general. The criterion for demarcating science from all other discourse is indeed that of the universal and causality.

response from chatgpt...

one evokes shit and the other I farted, of which it is their usual element!

[Ahmed]

From the same bricks it is possible to build a multitude of "things", but very few will be houses and among these even fewer will be truly functional. The theory of evolution is the best explanation that exists since it allows us to connect the facts in an understandable and coherent way. To maintain that there are other equivalents to play on doubt is not tenable. Invoking the fact that it is not perfect (this is precisely what guarantees its validity, since it can still improve on these details) to reject it wholesale and weigh it against hallucinatory rantings* is fair absurd.

* Why then not simply suggest: “that’s how it is, spicy!”

[Janic]

“Don’t believe what I tell you. Check it out”

16/09/23, 14:08
Ahmed

From the same bricks it is possible to build a multitude of "things", but very few will be houses and among these even fewer will be truly functional.

Very just ! If we rely solely on chance what would result in anything, preferably. So before building, you have to make plans, estimate the materials needed, the means needed to build, etc., whether with Legos or bricks. Having built two houses, and it's nowhere near as complex as a building or a tower, but the basics are the same, having been confronted directly with these elements.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation that exists since it allows us to connect the facts in an understandable and coherent way.

Absolutely not ! Thus in our Western medical system the dogma retained is that of allopathic medicine, which is “ the best explanation that exists since it allows the facts to be linked together in an understandable and coherent manner. » but other countries do not share this statement.
Other systems exist with the same claims which must be checked before considering them unreliable. But a dogma does not support or allow any challenge to its privileges and becomes totalitarian because of these exclusions.
We see this with the covid situation imposing its rules and rejecting any other means of struggle like the Catholic Church in its time with the persecution of Protestantism and any religion other than itself, this was seen with Nazism imposing its rules, sorry his dogmas, about who had the right to live or die. Topics change over time, but mentalities do not change out of conservatism and fear of being questioned.
Clearly a thesis which cannot and does not want being compared to an antithesis, cannot be considered credible; not because it may be false, but because this refusal thereby expresses its fragility.
Thus, since we are still in the middle of the covid crisis and its miraculous vaccine and contrary to what some might suggest, I only intervened on one and only point: checking whether historically still with the official archives (not by arbitrary selection of my part) if any vaccine had already prevented epidemics, which is the vaccination dogma, WHO sought to verify it? Person ! The dogma is so and so deeply anchored in the minds (from birth by the parents) that it “ is the best explanation that exists since it allows the facts to be linked together in an understandable and coherent manner. » except that the reality is quite different, but for that you need to have the intellectual and physical courage to verify it!

To maintain that there are other equivalents to play on doubt is not tenable. Invoking the fact that it is not perfect (this is precisely what guarantees its validity, since it can still improve on these details) to reject it wholesale and weigh it against hallucinatory rantings* is fair absurd.

Who said that when you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger?
Typical example of conservatism! It is not a question of playing on doubt, but on the contrary of going beyond the certainties of another era to verify, with concrete elements called scientific, if the theory still holds water, this is the basis of science. than to constantly question oneself and not only on details when these can on the contrary be major.

* Why then not simply suggest: “that’s how it is, spicy!”

Is that what you suggest then?

[Ahmed]

Of course, any message tends to conform to its logic, but not all logic is equal: those who killed during the "Charlie" attacks obeyed a certain intellectual coherence circumscribed in a particular frame of reference.
In the case of evolutionism, no valid challenge has ever arisen and the explanatory power of the model has remained intact. Furthermore, it is capable of evolving without contradiction and if this were the case it could be replaced by another model... Therefore, suppose that it is a dogma to be put in competition with other , is to demonstrate a false relativism.
What is generally opposed to it, creationism, only supports the absence of a problem (hence my "that's how it is spicy" previous) rather than explaining anything.
In the case of medical considerations, it appears that certain presuppositions (linked to more general "patterns") mean that the curative aspect is favored over the preventive, which is an unfortunate bias*. The latter is easily explained, since it is the condition for the continuity of the overall functioning of the current social synthesis: real prevention would require profound modifications to the foundations of our society and this therefore results in accommodation policies. to the present rules...

* The case of Covid is clearly a consequence of globalization and a vaccine is the only acceptable means since it allows not to attack the cause (which is not thinkable, in the strict sense), but to its results (up to a certain point, effectiveness is probably not decisive in this matter).

[artichoke]

[Janic]

16/09/23, 17:49
ahmed

In the case of evolutionism, no valid challenge has ever arisen and the explanatory power of the model has remained intact.

You said shortly before that you naively believed….
If I took the example of the dominant Catholic religion, it is because it precisely characterizes a system dominant over minorities considered heretics. All the systems which were built on the same model have seen all the protesters automatically eliminated, sometimes with violence and put to death. We are no longer there, but the social killing continues [*] and even increases when the physical killing disappears.

[*] to annoy the refractory party and whose social and professional life was ruined without the slightest hesitation or remorse by the big boss

In addition, it is capable of evolving without contradiction and if this were the case it could be replaced by another model...

You dream ! Real changes are only made through pain, because no one likes to have their “religious or scientific” beliefs called into question! The French revolution, like the others, caused human and social damage because brutally rejecting dominant systems like nobility and religion could not happen through a challenge from within. The replacement model did not do any better, because the previous dominant ones were replaced by others that were not necessarily better.
We see it in the very title where nobility is replaced by a claim to be the exclusive holders of scientific truth and the dominant religion by atheism which strangely resembles it.

Therefore, to assume that it is a dogma to be put in competition with others is to demonstrate relativism lie

you're going strong!

dogme
masculine noun
1. 1.
Point of doctrine established or considered as a fundamental, incontestable truth (in a religion, a philosophical school).

What is generally opposed to it, creationism, only supports the absence of a problem (hence my previous "that's how it is") rather than explaining anything.

You see, you are taking literally a speech which wants to compare two different approaches, in order to maintain this confusion which suits some.
So no ! Or we place the discourse exclusively on declared scientific facts and only these without trying to evoke any religion.
Or talk only about religion (but which ones?) without scientific mention. The explanations depend on the type of subject examined precisely.

In the case of medical considerations, it appears that certain presuppositions (linked to more general "patterns") mean that the curative aspect is favored over the preventive, which is an unfortunate bias*.

The preventive does not exclude the curative, but what type of preventive and curative precisely?*

The case of Covid is clearly a consequence of globalization and a vaccine is the only acceptable means since it makes it possible not to attack the cause (which is not thinkable, in the strict sense), but its results (until 'at a certain point, effectiveness is probably not decisive in this matter).

Not really ! A disease does not systematically spread to a global scale; it is first local before spreading to the region, the country and beyond. France still vaccinates against common diseases that have disappeared, with or without vaccines, on the other hand it imposes vaccines that have become useless in terms of prevention, but which allow only to maintain a juicy business.

(up to a certain point, effectiveness is probably not decisive in this matter)

This supposed effectiveness can only be measured over sufficiently long periods to verify its validity. But this verification is not carried out by the authorities and the doctors themselves who, most of the time, do not know much in this area (their only information comes from sellers of vaccines... or synthetic chemical drugs) . What remains are the statistical documents of each nation, which few consult or only select a small passage to self-justify their use.
Added to this are the influencers, often incompetent, who add their Ignorance.

All this to say that beliefs, whether evolutionary or creationist, are strangely similar.

[Ahmed]

I don't understand much about your disjointed remarks which clearly deviate from the subject under discussion, except that by a clever relativist sleight of hand you are trying to put on the same level a theory which has proven itself by correctly explaining reality* and convictions based on the simple fantasy of their followers.
I feel like we don't understand each other. When you say:

Not really ! A disease does not systematically spread to a global scale; it is first local before spreading to the region.

It is good that globalization allows and accelerates this process, as I describe it!

* Proof that the questioning of a theory is not done "painfully", is that over the duration of evolution which was initially judged to take a long time, it turned out that sometimes this time can be very short. This observation improves the theory and does not give rise to any reluctance.