US Presidential Election 2016: Sidney's Victory Lap

[Sidney]

@anon7035031

Spoken like a true zealot! The question whether science is or can be ideological or not is a philosophical one, and like all philosophical questions there are multiple answers (study Popper and Feyerabend for contrasting views*). Given the history of science, its really difficult to argue coherently that it’s not ideological, Popper or no Popper. The problem is science is not some defined truth, it’s open to the same flaws as any human quest for knowledge. I could give you several examples of well established theories, where contrary evidence has been uncovered, but then a new hypothesis quickly developed to explain why the theory still works. Science and scientists get very attached to their theories, as Max Planck once said, new theories only get accepted after all the proponents of the older theory die off.

Physical science is not human, therefore it cannot be ideological. Practitioners of science can be ideological, as they are human.

@anon7035031

However, there is one thing that unifies all those who profess to be Christian, Jew or Muslim - they are all creationists, otherwise they are not Christians, Jews or Muslims.

You’ve already said that most people in Ireland believe in creationism.

No offence, mate, but I imagine you’re quite out of touch.

You might want to spend a bit more time here before making such big claims about what people believe.

@anon7035031

Attempts by fundamentalist Christians to invade science are idiotic, as are attempts by zealot scientists like Dawkins and Krauss to invade religion. In both cases neither has a fucking clue about the subject matter they are challenging.

That’s not what you’ve said previously.

@anon7035031

Almost all important scientists since Darwin made shit of religion are atheists or agnostics.

Being ignorant about subject matter has never stopped you wading into debates.

Didn’t you call for Islam to be banned?

@anon7035031

There is no such thing as a Christian who doesn’t believe in God*, that’s another oxymoron, but I suppose someone who believes Marxism can work can believe anything.

@anon7035031

For full disclosure, I am a Christian Agnostic.

The Oxford definition of agnostic is: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.”

But given you call yourself a “Christian Agnostic”, you’re also a creationist, obviously.

Now that’s an oxymoron.

I suppose somebody who believes in the infallibility of the free market can believe in anything.

I’m not a Marxist, by the way, although I do think he has made extremely valuable contributions to political and sociological thought.