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. 🤣
I see the problem, you think saying "stating the fact" makes your opinion objectively true instead of subjectively bullshit. 🤣
Do you dispute that? Can you show me an instance where this is not the case? Can you argue meaningfully about something you have no clue about - to the extend you call it "random word salad"? Could I argue in Chinese with a Chinese guy without knowing the language and understand anything?
This is your opinion and the basis of your entire argument.
It's not my opinion, it's just that science doesn't use a single universal method. See here:
Darwin's delay in publishing his theory involved factors other than the stormy political climate. For what he was proposing marked a significant departure from conventional English empirical science. At the heart of natural philosophy in England, as we have seen earlier, was an emphasis on observation and experiment. Even though most scientists did not follow precisely the Baconian emphasis on the primary role of empirical observation, nevertheless, they recognized the crucial importance of experimental testing of particular hypotheses.
This requirement presented Darwin with a grave methodological problem, simply because he was proposing a theory in which direct observation and experiment were clearly impossible, at least in the sense that a biologist could confirm the hypothesis of natural selection by observing it in the action of significantly transforming one species into another. Obviously, the time spans involved and the often minute succession of variations by which one species developed out of a species with quite a different appearance (e.g., reptiles from fish) meant that no direct testing by observation and experiment was possible.
To meet this difficulty, Darwin developed a new scientific procedure, now known as the hypothetico-deductive method. He first developed a theory, relying upon analogy and deduction to organize a plausible explanation, without direct empirical evidence, and then applied that theory to a wide range of facts, to demonstrate the explanatory power of what he was proposing.
The fact they called this a theory and thus equivocated it to legitimate theory that are subject to observation and experimentation (as in hard sciences of physics and chemistry) is ridiculous and the greatest hoax there was. Darwin and his cronies basically redefined what scientific knowledge means so they were able to pass the mythological evo theory for actual science.
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. 🤣
Do you dispute that? Can you show me an instance where this is not the case? Can you argue meaningfully about something you have no clue about - to the extend you call it "random word salad"? Could I argue in Chinese with a Chinese guy without knowing the language and understand anything?
It's not my opinion, it's just that science doesn't use a single universal method. See here:
The fact they called this a theory and thus equivocated it to legitimate theory that are subject to observation and experimentation (as in hard sciences of physics and chemistry) is ridiculous and the greatest hoax there was. Darwin and his cronies basically redefined what scientific knowledge means so they were able to pass the mythological evo theory for actual science.
You can read the whole paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/