Funkytom467

To suggest where the meme was taken from (if it wasn’t abundantly clear already…)

It was intentional, honestly i’m proud of it x)

And I just put mine on the shelf and pick it up when i use it.

Nowhere, not American is a foreign concept to them.

deleted by creator

I started with c++ so does c really has advantages over c++ ?

And yeah same, Rust seems to be pretty cool too, at some point I’m gonna try it…

I had worse one time, met a Quebec girl, she introduced me to a friend, a guy from Martinique. And i’m from France…

I’m not familiar with Facebook, but if you can’t create a business account without a personal account, how would you create one without having multiple accounts?

Good women make them

What is the soviet onion?

And the benefit only goes to people who make others do shit they don’t care about. Never to the work that’s important and can be cared about.

We shall run our water production through filters so every comrade gets clean water for free!

You can’t get no…

Yeah sure, making meth, using kids to sell drugs and killing them, being an addict, letting someone’s girlfriend die of an overdose, forcing a relationship… All thoses nice family values.

Maybe you forgot that in the end Walter does also admit he did it for him, not his family.

You’re right, it’s probably not right way ro put it, it’s not The truth in the philosophical sens.

Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.

However i don’t think science is just about facts, it’s also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That’s what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.

So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.

That’s why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don’t know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it’s true if there is enough evidence.

However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can’t never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.

(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)

…

For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth’s frame of reference.

(Of course Greek’s models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)

What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.

But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn’t actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy’s idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.

It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.

(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)

Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn’t science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That’s an important distinction in most context…

T is for Tired as fuck.

Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.

What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.

Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.

So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.

Believing isn’t just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.

I don’t think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that’s contradictory.

As for moral, i didn’t explicitly say it’s science, because it isn’t, it’s philosophy. But scientists that don’t want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.

Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.

Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it’s application always had concerned about morals.

P.S. I don’t have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn’t a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.

They do overlap in their goals.

God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.

Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.

Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.

Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That’s very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.

And atheists aren’t all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they’re not fundamentalist.

The problem is there is no edge on that coin.

You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.

One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.

(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one…)

But you sure won’t make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It’s too involving, we’re bound to be obnoxious.

The turn signal to turn left looks like an arrow pointing to the right.