Idiots like to use big words to obfuscate simple illogical ideas. If you cannot state something plainly more often than not it's because you don't understand it or you know it's not a legitimate argument.
"Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple."
Woody Guthrie
You don't have a better theory than evolution and now you are in your feelings because I can see through your bullshit. eMoTiOnAl DaMaGe
I explained it simply and then elaborated. What part of all data is interpreted through a worldview (no self-evident truths) or a scientific theory being based on observable and reproducible phenomena didn't you understand?
There can be no scientific theory about things that no one witnessed like the origin of the universe or of life or things no one has access to like the underlying nature of reality. There are only speculations based on assumptions about said universe and existence. Such arguments are in the realm of philosophy, not of science which deals only with the physical observable world.
Woody Guthrie was a commie hick who bought into a false dialectic (commies vs. fascists - he's basically antifa soyjack of his time), so who cares what he said? Some concepts can't be reduced to absolutely simple terms and require a basic level of understanding of the problem being discussed. Certain metaphysical, epistemological and meta-philosophical problems tends to be like that because they get very abstract.
There can be no scientific theory about things that no one witnessed like the origin of the universe or of life or things no one has access to like the underlying nature of reality.
That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.
Such arguments are in the realm of philosophy, not of science which deals only with the physical observable world.
Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.
Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?
Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.
What? This doesn't follow at all - it's a composition fallacy. What does all arguments being made of letters have to do with the argument being made? "All math problems use some sort of numbers and letters everyone uses so mathematicians shouldn't gatekeep math as we all apparently understand it equally well".
Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".
There can be no scientific theory about things that no one witnessed like the origin of the universe or of life or things no one has access to like the underlying nature of reality.
This is your opinion and the basis of your entire argument.
Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping.
I see the problem, you think saying "stating the fact" makes your opinion objectively true instead of subjectively bullshit. 🤣
Idiots like to use big words to obfuscate simple illogical ideas. If you cannot state something plainly more often than not it's because you don't understand it or you know it's not a legitimate argument.
You don't have a better theory than evolution and now you are in your feelings because I can see through your bullshit. eMoTiOnAl DaMaGe
I explained it simply and then elaborated. What part of all data is interpreted through a worldview (no self-evident truths) or a scientific theory being based on observable and reproducible phenomena didn't you understand?
There can be no scientific theory about things that no one witnessed like the origin of the universe or of life or things no one has access to like the underlying nature of reality. There are only speculations based on assumptions about said universe and existence. Such arguments are in the realm of philosophy, not of science which deals only with the physical observable world.
Woody Guthrie was a commie hick who bought into a false dialectic (commies vs. fascists - he's basically antifa soyjack of his time), so who cares what he said? Some concepts can't be reduced to absolutely simple terms and require a basic level of understanding of the problem being discussed. Certain metaphysical, epistemological and meta-philosophical problems tends to be like that because they get very abstract.
That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.
Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.
No, it's not a false dichotomy logical fallacy and you using "fanciful language" doesn't make it so. I literally gave you the definition of a scientific theory and it said the exact same thing. Here's the algorithm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/bin/cbe0010600110006.jpg
Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?
What? This doesn't follow at all - it's a composition fallacy. What does all arguments being made of letters have to do with the argument being made? "All math problems use some sort of numbers and letters everyone uses so mathematicians shouldn't gatekeep math as we all apparently understand it equally well".
Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".
This is your opinion and the basis of your entire argument.
I see the problem, you think saying "stating the fact" makes your opinion objectively true instead of subjectively bullshit. 🤣