"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[mikkel_the_dane]

It’s irrelevant to science. It’s not a limitation, it’s simply irrelevant. And no one, including me, is claiming otherwise.

And your scientific evidence for that is what?

 

[Kathryn]

Good grief, you act as if Science isn't constantly changing and upgrading itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

But if there were no humans in the universe it wouldn't be known that there was a universe.
I am talking about knowledge as such. Not just science.

Entirely vague, obtuse, confusing and incoherent not worthy of a response.

It remains you are playing Duck, Bob and Weasel, with confusing, vague, obtuse and incoherent post.

I cited specifics form your posts and you have failed to respond.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have not got past your vague, obtuse, incoherent argument concerning the relationship of the physical and science.

Simply at this point. It simply happens.

Thanks. As for having another understanding of science and the physical. Don't worry, I already as a newborn denied gravity and jumped off a cliff and I have been dead ever since, so you can't save me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good grief, you act as if Science isn't constantly changing and upgrading itself.

I'm still upset about Pluto though. *grin*

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good grief, you act as if Science isn't constantly changing and upgrading itself.

Well, there is science in different cultural versions, but Science I have never heard off. What is that?

 

[Kathryn]

I'm still upset about Pluto though. *grin*

Yeah that was kind of a bummer.

 

[shunyadragon]

And your scientific evidence for that is what?

Is what?!??!!??
More obtuse,, vague incoherent Dodge not willing to provide coherent relevant responses.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, there is science in different cultural versions, but Science I have never heard off. What is that?

Hey, I have never heard of "off" being used that way, but whatever. You do you and I'll do me.

I capitalized Science because it seemed like the correct way to spell it that time. But if you prefer science knock yourself out.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, there is science in different cultural versions, but Science I have never heard off. What is that?

Today I believe science is international science,

Please reference and document science as different in different cultures without referring to the subjective reality of religions in different cultures.,

The questions I have presented and you have failed to respond are mounting.See post #284.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is what?!??!!??
More obtuse,, vague incoherent Dodge not willing to provide coherent relevant responses.

It’s irrelevant to science. It’s not a limitation, it’s simply irrelevant. And no one, including me, is claiming otherwise.

What is the evidence that it is irrelvent to science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Today I believe science is international science,

Please reference and document science as different in different cultures without referring to the subjective reality of religions in different cultures.,

Humanistisk videnskabsteori. Danish book isbn 978-87-11-34852-9

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Today I believe science is international science,

Please reference and document science as different in different cultures without referring to the subjective reality of religions in different cultures.,

The questions I have presented and you have failed to respond are mounting.

Yeah, I don't really care as your version of science is not the only one. See above.

 

[shunyadragon]

Humanistisk videnskabsteori. Danish book isbn 978-87-11-34852-9

This is not a viable reference for any dialogue in this forum.

Please respond coherently to something that can be referenced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not a viable reference for any dialogue in this forum.

Please respond coherently to something that can be referenced.

Yeah, you are the judge of that. It has to be in English or it is not relevant.

You ask for another culture and I gave you a Danish book. That is another culture and you can't claim it is not relevant, because you can't read it. That is a cultural thing and the very point it was about.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I don't really care as your version of science is not the only one. See above.

Methodological Naturalism is not my version. It is the International Version of Science.

Nothing but hot air above and fading in the breeze. I do not believe your reference offers anything in terms of science considering the vague, obtuse, confusing and incoherent slippery nature of your posts.

Still waiting for a coherent response to my questions See post #284.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is universal as far as the evolving knowledge of our physical existence. Claims of a universal beyond this is subjective, and there are far to many claims of what would be the universal beyond what we can know through science concerning out physical existence.

Acknowledging science has limits does not address the subjective "claims" of what is the "best form of knowledge beyond science,

How could we determine anything consistent and reliable beyond our physical existence to determine the "the only or best form of knowledge."

Correct, there is no best form of knowledge, not even science.
Best is not science.
Sorry I overlooked that one.
I have never seen any evidence with or without science for best form of knowledge using science or not.

 

[F1fan]

And your scientific evidence for that is what?

What the hell?

The link you’ve posted dozens of times says this. Your post 288 says something similar.

So what’s going on here?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, you are the judge of that. It has to be in English or it is not relevant.

It has to a reference in English that can be referenced on the internet to be remotely meaningful

You ask for another culture and I gave you a Danish book. That is another culture and you can't claim it is not relevant, because you can't read it. That is a cultural thing and the very point it was about.

It is reference in Danish that cannot be downloaded and referenced. Difference in language does not represent a difference in science. There is not explanation here that can support your argument.

There still remains many unanswered questions, on your part. Obscure references in Danish are yes irrelevant, unless you can present a clear understandable argument for your case with intelligible references,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What the hell?

The link you’ve posted dozens of times says this. Your post 288 says something similar.

So what’s going on here?

Sorry if I made a mistake.
I will try again.

It’s irrelevant to science. It’s not a limitation, it’s simply irrelevant. And no one, including me, is claiming otherwise.

How do you know with evidence as per science that it is irrelevant to science?