Oh, I see. I'll concede as soon as you give me a good reason why the scientists couldn't make a single person sick with the flu back in 1919. Seems like the Spanish flu was a rebel and didn't want to cooperate with the lab coats - it was hyper infectious though, just not when people were observing it closely.
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.
You can read the whole paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/
That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.
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?
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".
Are there any alternatives though community wise? I got here after getting axed by the reddit cucks.
Does it matter? Is Andrew any different than Charles? They are all the same degenerate satanists.
William and Kate are as good of a stabby and NWO agenda pushers as Harry and Meghan. It's a family business and they're all in it. If someone wants out he get's Diana'd.
That's simply not true and a massive generalization. There are legit threads and users here and not everyone is a bot, fedboy, troll or a schizo. A lot of good stuff is posted with minimum stupid fake and ghey alien bs.
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.
random word salad
As I said, it flew way over your head. Is Chinese a bunch of random sounds just because I don't understand the language?
Yeah, as I thought this flew way over your head.
Chapters 17 and 18 deal with acknowledging vaccine injuries and long term effects of the stabbies.
There's a method to all this but it's hard to say why they do it. I'd say it's the same reason as with all other cataclysms, revolutions and crises - they want to collapse the existing system and replace it with another one.
Yes, I engage in conversations about it with my peers and I pay in cash as much as possible. If everybody did just that we wouldn't have a problem to begin with.
Besides, what's wrong with using digital media to disseminate such a message? It's not a performative contradiction, it's turning the tools they use to enslave us against them. That's the whole history of the internet in a nutshell. A sword can be used to slaughter innocents and terrorize but it also can be used for self defense and to bring justice - it's a tool. The person using it is the moral agent.
That's a good point. But what has William being compliant have to do with them murdering his wife?
Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality. Just like people were taught creationism to be an undisputed fact in the Christian world before that. But Darwin's theory didn't disprove creationism, it just posited a competing explanation of creation based on a different worldview (which it did not prove to be the case but presupposed).
All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.
Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary since that worldview can't give justification for knowledge, truth, meaning or any universal concepts as a whole.
The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?
That's a definition of theory. But for a theory to be called scientific it must adhere to the scientific method principles:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
In the context of science:
- you first observe a phenomenon
- construct viable hypotheses
- test hypotheses
- put forward a theory
No, I think the space they sold us is fake.
Theory is the operative word in Darwin's Theory of Evolution
It's not a theory though because it's not based on empirical observation. We've only observed adaptation and sexual selection. By evo theory I mean the large scale belief of the origin and evolution of life as well as the universe. It's a metaphysical claim based on fundamental presuppositions about the nature of existence (materialism, naturalism and determinism).
I can deboonk it on philosophical and logical grounds alone without getting into hermeneutics of "evidence". Scientismo basic bitch Neil De Grasse types don't know philosophy and they conveniently reject it (as if science is not based on it).
It doesn't make sense unless very few people knew about the shots. I'd always imagine the royal family to be in on it. Charles surely knows.
"But UBI will surely be a good thing, right?"
That's why you use cash every single fucking time you can. There's no excuse.
True. Evo theory and space are a big one.
Ok so it's a list of powerful and wealthy people. Still no context though. Are they all part of an inner circle and in on the NWO agenda? Are they all co-conspiritors?
I picked Romanov's dynasty as an example - the tzar's family stood in the way of said agenda and almost all were killed.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf
They gamed a coronavirus pandemic back in 2017. There was another one in 2019 called Event 201. Total coincidence of course.
A list of names with no context given? How are Rockefeller or Romanov jewish?
Finally a "trusted media" msm source I can share with the normies. The Overton window is shifting. We're entering the final chapter of the SPARS scenario.
Why is a pedo death cult bad from your wordlview?
You can check their methodology in their study, but you don't want to look at it for some reason.
Because it's contaminated. I'd never take blood from a person suffering from a disease like that. How does that prove the disease is caused by a virus?