Your replies indicate that you are not able to have this discussion as you are too steeped in your field of study, which I assume you consider to be objectively correct. I respect the time and effort you've put into it, but Philosophy, though useful at times, is conjecture, not science. It does not have a place in a discussion about the inherent truth of measurable natural phenomenon if one is not able to cast doubt on it. I shall move on.

▲ kriops 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Science is philosophy, though what one might describe as applied philosophy. The point being: science (the scientific method) cannot exist outside the context of some epistemic system.

I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you. Take your own suggestion. But don't just read about Hume; get a broader intro to the subject so you can understand how ontology, epistemology, ethics, and politics tie into one another.

▲ defrost 4 days ago | parent [-]

  I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you.

As an exercise in knowledge and observation, who 'recommended' Hume up thread, and to wHume are you replying?

▲

kriops 4 days ago | parent [-]

Nice catch. Those passwords-as-usernames got me :)

	▲	defrost 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No drama, gave me a chuckle & I'm glad you took it well; my primary motivation was to alert you in case you wanted to change up your response, etc. Hume might have enjoyed this past century's Dialetheism of Graham Priest and Richard Sylvan as a solution to paradox arising from strict rationalism, it's more probable Hume would have lacked any passion for it.

▲ flir 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I thought you got schooled, too.