Regarding falsification: "Gender Studies" belong to the concepts without ... in a way that counterexamples (the case of Davir Reimer) are simply denied. Instead, the syntax of language is being perverted to denounce quite any grammatical form (e.g. nouns in German do have a gender) as ableism (the simplified use of the grammatically male form of e.g. a profession title is considered as denouncing females, and syntax is invented which is meant to express a neutral representation of both genders, with the result of a heavily disturbed readability of the whole text).
I am sad that there are people who get paid for the destruction of the language and the society, while others hardly survive with reasonable jobs.
I agree. Funny thing is they're trying to make this silliness pass as science and social positive evolution. What i most disturbing is they're trying to push the concept by teaching it to child since at early age
Hmm, I really would like to add something to this. You strictly distinguish between science and philosophy. I am pretty sure that the philosophers will have your skin for that. You can study philosophy and it is a very strict science, completely logically derivable.
In this context, discussing metaphysics, at least in our everyday context, is really bad. One cannot mix philosophy with esoteric junkfood...
In general, I agree with what you said before (maybe less than with Pierre, but ...). Just this bit is really disturbing.
well imo your point is true and not true at the same time... the point is there is no single unique philosophy, there are the philosophies, many of them are incompatible with each other while still being true (both). Some follow strict logic other doesn't and they are still true.
Metaphysic is not esoteric junk (well... not all of them) and falls under the category of philosophy, however I agree that when tossing around uncarefully metaphysic concepts and theories in our everyday context, is really bad and can lead to nowhere at best.
Well, this is my main point of contention with religious ideology - when its taken into *real life* ( Sorry, I'm not sure what else to call it ) and treated not as a religious truth, but as an absolute truth. ( Again, the terms used here are awkward.)
In the case of Galileo ( if that's what you are referring to ), it looks like it was a case of "Might makes Right". xD
"Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
I agree and it leads back to my main point... trying to push things that belongs to different "realms" into "realms" they don't belong to can only lead to epic fails.
And this brings up another point: religion Vs. politic. Of course you can't completely separate and ignore religious beliefs and political behaviors in a human being (as much as you can't separate its mind from its heart) and not even in a society but history already proved what disasters can happen when the two overlaps. In my opinion the same can be said for science Vs. politic: while the latter should respect and encourage the first (within moral limits) it should not take the latest discoveries as "religious" truth and adequate itself (too) hastily.
Interesting enough who is in charge to define moral limits and ethic is philosophy and this leads back to religions as one of the many philosophic paths.
P.S. Just to make it clear I'm not saying religions are the only in charge to define moral limits and ethic.
