homegrown wrote:oh, darn, sorry, Voice of Time! Yep, talking to you!
Okay then. I can't remember saying that being educated is losing. Another attempt at attributing me things I have not said.
I'll teach you why they do not deserve to be bombastic, because bombastic itself would not exemplify anything. If you wish to impress because you think you are smart in some way then you
show us why we should be impressed by providing threads and posts yourself, and we can all judge you by them. Do you have ingenious solutions to problems? Do you know questions which none of us have asked yet or a way of rewording those questions in new ingenious ways? That kind of thing.
About what you were saying in the video: you have no proof that humanity is about to be extinct in any way or is on the course of it.
"i don't think there's much of a controversy that humanity is threatened with extinction"
Now that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about in terms of vagueness. Of course, in many angles you could say that humanity is threatened, but "a threat" is not an action or process which has any innate "value". Meaning, that in theory a lot of ants around the place I live are threatened by me possibly stepping on them, however, how many of them are actually gonna be stepped on in the course of say one year? I'd say quite a few, and still, there's "a threat" there. But the threat isn't worth taking seriously, I'm not about to make extinct the local ants just because there's a threat to them all that I might step on them. Words without value are nonsensical in relation to any imperative or modal auxiliary verbs!
it's only in denial of the truth that science is valid knowledge of reality
valid... what a nice word. So who decides what's valid or not? I guess we humans do, and where do our validity stem from? Philosophy, our ideas on the world, all of its content, and how it is. Meaning, that you first must have a philosophical idea of the world before you can make a scientific one. If you were to make a choice, one scientific fact that proves women are less brainy than men, and another, which says women are the equals of men, which one would you go for? I would go for the second, because I know that whoever made the scientific "discovery" had a philosophical agenda behind it, so the person would angle the "truth" the way they want it to be portrayed. Because the second knowledge isn't "valid knowledge of reality", as you put it, it can't be taken into account. Unless of course you have some ideology that says "this is garbage, we can't let ourselves be dictated by unfairly designed experiments! We can't... ehm... validate this".
The experiment may or may not be true, but whatever the outcome of the experiment, taking it into account would be abusive to women's right for self-fulfilment. A right, which, comes from ideology.
Science only tells us one thing: whether what we thought to be facts actually are facts. The rest is philosophy, pseudo-philosophy, religion and non-specific opinion.
