Yeah I knew this. It's pretty hilarious what a joke virology is as a discipline. Stefan Lanka is a great to pay attention to as a guy who trained as a virologist and realized what a bullshit discipline it is.
a) the highest value in existence represents evaluation thereof; hence each ones responding choice within; which the few are utilizing when suggesting economics to corrupt the choice of those consenting to it.
b) ECON'OMY, noun [Latin oeconomia; Gr. house, and law, rule.] aka the laws of men suggested in exchange for consent to ignore the laws of nature.
c) instead of making beliefs; consider the use of suggesting ignorance (choice of want over need). Nature doesn't suggest; choice within nature shapes suggestions out of it. Consent to suggestions by choice imply submission to choice of others.
"Sceinces" where there's multiple opposing ways to explain things.
The opposing aspect is based on the conflict of reason (want vs not want) caused by consenting to a suggested -ism (scientism in your example). It doesn't matter what side one chooses to consent to (want or not want); because the consent to the suggestion is what causes the conflict; so one is tricked to choose a side within a conflict that is controlled only by those suggesting; not by those reasoning about it.
Ask yourself about examples of winning reasoning...
Yeah I knew this. It's pretty hilarious what a joke virology is as a discipline. Stefan Lanka is a great to pay attention to as a guy who trained as a virologist and realized what a bullshit discipline it is.
a) the highest value in existence represents evaluation thereof; hence each ones responding choice within; which the few are utilizing when suggesting economics to corrupt the choice of those consenting to it.
b) ECON'OMY, noun [Latin oeconomia; Gr. house, and law, rule.] aka the laws of men suggested in exchange for consent to ignore the laws of nature.
c) instead of making beliefs; consider the use of suggesting ignorance (choice of want over need). Nature doesn't suggest; choice within nature shapes suggestions out of it. Consent to suggestions by choice imply submission to choice of others.
The opposing aspect is based on the conflict of reason (want vs not want) caused by consenting to a suggested -ism (scientism in your example). It doesn't matter what side one chooses to consent to (want or not want); because the consent to the suggestion is what causes the conflict; so one is tricked to choose a side within a conflict that is controlled only by those suggesting; not by those reasoning about it.
Ask yourself about examples of winning reasoning...