or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 The motivations that drive people to science are unconnected with the scientific principles that they apply in conducting research. The biggest motivator is generally curiosity, which is exactly the right mindset to start with. If the motivation is to prove a pet theory then that person will likely be a poor scientist. And now you are confusing unknowns with unknowables. And still missing my point that science doesn't prove positives, only disprove them. So no - of course...
Seriously - every time you respond to his silly, baiting posts you give him a reason to continue posting. 
Quote: No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the...
Or at least please stop quoting him. These threads are much better without his anti-Apple trolling or ridiculous religious and political posts.
Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one. 
 I'm late to the party to point out that your post clearly indicates that you have little or no understanding of science. Firstly, there is no place for beliefs in science, since that would go entirely against the fundamental scientific principle (observe, hypothesize, test, refine). Looking back and laughing at the flat earth model and bloodletting simply shows that you are unable to distinguish science from non-science. The flat earth concept did not arise from anything...
Would you mind just explaining and justifying what you mean when you claim that science is subjective?
It seems to me that the main motivation was to provide more explicit protection to business entities that might face legal challenges to their refusal to do business with individuals based on their religious beliefs - specifically, in this case, in relation to same-sex marriage and related issues. The recent civil cases brought against photographers and bakers, together with the growing momentum to legalize same-sex marriage were probably the triggers. I actually have no...
That's an interesting question. Doesn't the Establishment Clause simply outlaw legislation that favors one religion over another? This particular bill doesn't appear to do that, at least as far as I can see, and so I'm not clear how it does violate that. What are you seeing that would be in violation?
New Posts  All Forums: