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.

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. Meta-philosophy tends to be like that because it gets very abstract.

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?

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, so who cares what he said.