Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
First and second cause is not the apropriate distinction here. We blame the responsible person for murder, even though it was the bullet who killed the victim and the gun which sent the bullet flying. When we asign guilt for tragic events we trace the causal chain back to the first moral creature that would be aware of what they're doing. We blame Hitler for Holocaust as a whole even though SS officers clearly made a choice that wasn't controlled solely by Hitler. If, however, Hitler was a robot programmed to what he did by someone who knew the eventual outcome; then we would obviously place the guilt of Holocaust on the creator of Hitler, and view Hitler as the tool.
Similarly, the world being "evil" is caused by a lot of unfortunate events, but only God is responsible. He chose to create a world that would be evil. He specifically put a tree in the garden of eden when he knew that Adam and Eve would eat of it. God bears the ultimate responsibility for how the world turned out.
And no, this doesn't mean Hitler wasn't evil --- just that God already decided that he would be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
God causing our universe definitively puts him BEFORE our universe. He doesn't need to be inside our universe's temporal dimension for my argument to be valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Your argument is that our world is too complex for God to have precise foreknowledge about it. Essentially you are saying that God isn't smart enough to predict the future, he has to observe events to know their outcome.
The fine-turning argument shows that a creator would necesarily be intelligent enough to produce a desired outcome by tinkering with the starting conditions. If God created a universe suitable for life on the first try then he definately decided how history should look like.
Humans can sometimes predict the actions of others given different situations; and the scientific field of biology is begining to understand our behavior. Humans being too unpredictable for an omniscient omnipotent God is a preposterous claim.
Created:
Posted in:
Free will contradicts theism because a creator God necesarily prohibits free will.
P1: An omniscient God knows the complete history of every possible universe; (by necesity including all choices made every universe)
P2: A creator God decided which of the possible universes to create
C: God literally decided how history would turn out and what choices people would make
There is no way around this conclusion. God decided to create a universe where Adam and Eve would eat from the fruit of knowledge. God decided that Adam and Eve would sin, because literally nothing is outside his controll. By definition, nothing happens that conflict with God's decisions. Adam and Eve did not have free will; their choice was no more free than a clock is to show the correct time or not. The creator of the watch is responsible for the watch dysfunctioning, not the watch istself. Blaming a human for a crime is like blaming a gun for a murder --- sure it was the gun who shot the bullet, but the gun was controlled by someone else. This is just an analogy of course, but the point is important.
The problem of evil is so often dismissed without further elaboration by pointing to free will, and that humans (and/or demons), not God, cause evil and suffering in this world. When used to solve the problem of evil free will is nothing short of magic being invoked to dodge the disturbing implications of God's magic.
If we remove the "magic" from the equation we can confidently say that all humans have choice --- but that CHOISE IS NOT FREE FROM EXTERNAL CONTROLL AND CAUSALITY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
He is a clinical psycologist. Whatever data he uses, it isn't simply "common sense". The question is whether or not his messages are correct conclusions from his field.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The evidence for Einsteins theory of relativity is overwhelming; and it assumes the speed of light to be constant. The slowing of light in different enviroments is due to its path being affected, as evidenced by the slowing of light in water causing refraction. Time dilation is a result of processes slowing down when an object moves faster; and they slow down specifically because causation is limited by the speed of light. Interactions happen less frequent when electromagnetic waves have to spend alot of travelling time just to reach the other particles in an object.
If an object moved faster than light, internal interactions would stop completely as the particles would not be able to communicate with each other via electromagnetism.
So yeah, the fact that no experiment can prove lightspeed to be constant is only explainable by the very theory that assumes it is. Hope that answers your question.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you have any thoughts about Dr. Jordan Peterson and his controversial messages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Excatly. C is the speed of electromagnetic propagation; and not only that, gravity also moves at the speed of light. One could say that it is the speed of causality. And since we can calculate it without needing measurements or reference frames, it can act as an objective standard for comparison of velocity. By knowing your velocity relative to C, you could use the measured velocities of objects relative to you to calculate their objective velocity. If two independent observers did this, they would agree on the velocity of each other relative to C.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we can imagine it in a world, it is logically sound to say so
God existing in your imaginary world doesn't prove that all worlds that actually exist have a God in them, even if you assume an MGB to be interwordly.
Why would you base your argument for the existence of a higher being on your own imagination? Someone else, muslims for example, can imagine the MGB to be Allah and not JWHW; do you think the argument proves that both exist in the real world? If not, then you are arbitrarily selecting your own imagination to be the supreme ruler of what can and can't exist in hypothetical worlds. If you reject the existence of Allah without rejecting the existence of JWHW, you are a victim of cognitive dissonanse --- unless you admit the ontological argument to be a meaningless construction of hypotheticals with no basis in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Actually, I believe, we do choose to be born as physical beings. Our existence does not begin at birth, nor even at conception, but existed previously as immortal, spirit children of God, our Father, which, of course, means we also have a Mother in Heaven, a perfect, resurrected female being as is God a male. Gender has purpose, and it is not an alphabet soup.
If by "we" you mean the humans walking on earth and discussing on this site, then you are wrong. Your thoughts exist within your physical brain, which didn't exist before your biological body. Whatever "spirits" hypothetically exists aren't us humans anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
The reason measurements of velocity are relative is because the measurer has its own non-zero velocity that affect the measurement. A car has a total velocity larger than what we measure on the surface because the observer isn't taking into account his own movement as the Earth spins. If you could know your own velocity perfectly, you could calculate the velocity of everything else. The problem is that to know your own velocity you must measure it from another reference frame, which also isn't sure of its own velocity. We need a constant reference frame to find absolute velocity.
Light might be that constant reference frame.
Light moves at a constant speed; its not affected by the movement of its source, only the direction of travel. If you wanted to know whether or not your spaceship was moving, you could aim a laser beam at the wall and see if it missed the mark; which it would only do if the spaceship itself was moving. If you came to the point where the laser would always hit its target perfectly (and I mean, perfectly), then your spaceship would be AT REST, RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Any movement external observers measured from your spaceship would be caused by their velocity relative to the universe, not yours. You would experience no time dilation.
Why?
Light is a wave in the electromagnetical field. It has no mass and is moving at the maximum speed the universe allows. Light moves at C, relative to the universe itself. For this reason, it can be used to measure absolute velocity with some calculations and knowledge of this principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
Do you have any objections to this rebuttal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You can’t go straight from “X is possible” to “therefore X”
The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Maximally great is defined as the Abrahamic God basically, because the MGB is said to necesarily be the strongest, smartest and "moral-est" possible, fitting the description of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection. Now of course anyone could project their image of greatness onto this MGB, and this disqualifies the argument from (validly) being used by Christians or any other group. However, the argument's logic itself is wrong.
Actually my reconstruction doesn't prove the MGB at all; what it does is showcase the inconclusiveness of the argument. One cannot know anything about the other "possible" worlds the argument assumes, and thus claiming with certainty that an MGB exists in one of those is absurd. Because of this, the question of an MGB's existence cannot be answered without clear evidence that such an MGB exists in OUR WORLD.
The ontological argument is a fallacy that attempts to move the goalpost of proving an MGB's existence in our world into its possibility in hypothetical worlds.
AKA, it's evidence from imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I prefer to re-construct the absurd premises into a more logical form.
1: An MGB necesarilly exists in all possible worlds if it exists at all
2: Our world is possible, as it exists
3: IF and ONLY IF an MGB exists, it exists in our world
Whether or not an MGB is even possible, or if it exists, is up for debate as you can't "define something into existence" as you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The premises aren't true, therefore, even if you believe the argument itself to be valid, it isn't sound.
Created:
Posted in:
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
The premise here is that a maximally great being isn't logically contradictory. What that means is that it is possible that it could exists; however, its posible existence isn't certain. That is to say, we don't know whether or not a maximally great being could exist. Abscence of known imposibility is not evidence of possiblity.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
Why are we just assuming that every possible world exists? And how do we know with absolute certainty that some world is both possible and allows for an MGB?Claiming that an MGB already exists in some hypothetical world is equivalent to saying that the world exists; and that claim requires evidence.
If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
So the strange mind-twisting reasoning behind this claim is that nothing can be called maximally great if it's restricted to one or a few worlds. If we accept this, then we run into a contradiction. An MGB possibly existing in a world_X forces it to also exist in every other world, even those in which an MGB cannot exist. To avoid this dilema you would have to prove that an MGB is possible in every possible world. This is nigh impossible, seeing as there are supposedly infinite possible worlds.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
First off, we don't know that an MGB exists in any world, because we don't know for sure that a world_X exists in which an MGB is possible. Moving on. Simply because a hypothetical multiverse could exist doesn't prove that it does. We know that our world is possible because it exists, but we don't know if any other possible worlds exist. Logically speaking, its a possibility that an MGB is impossible in the real world(s), and that an MGB only resides in the hypothetical (read: imaginary) worlds. Because non-real worlds, even if possible, are imaginary, it doesn't matter whether or not they are inhabited by an MGB.
Unless a world with an MGB is proven to exist, an MGB cannot be proven to exist either. Imaginary possibilities don't make for valid evidence.
If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
If "God-in-disguise" exists, then he does indeed exist. The problem is in the second premise in the argument, when God was already "proven" to exist due to possibly existing. This entire argument is a piece of circular logic, because we cannot know whether or not God actually exists in any world, far less ones that aren't our own.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Correction: could exist.
RETURN TO SENDER:
- If God is an MGB, then he necesarily is the greatest personal achiever
- Humans reproduce and create a civilisation of their own kind -- thus they create something greater than themselves
- The Biblical God, despite being omnipotent, has not created anything greater than himself
- The Biblical God has not achieved more (compared to his ability) than humans, and thus isn't the greatest personal achiever
- An MGB would be a greater personal achiever than God, and thus God is not an MGB
This argument uses the same kind of logic that the ontological argument uses.
Created:
Posted in:
Ontological Argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Maximally Great Being: Being that is Morally Perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful
Sound: Argument is valid and has true premises
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
A single photon won't radiate new photons in all directions. In fact, it can't radiate at all, it is the radiation, a single packet of electromagnetical energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Murder of police and politicians is not "using the 2nd ammendment --- its called a coup. Secondly, America is NOT the freest most democratic nation in the world DESPITE the population being armed to their teeth and having a history of disliked presidents being assasinated. Furthermore, every other democracy is doing just fine without fear of armed citizens. There is no connection between your argument and real life.
What standard would you even use when judging whether or not a government is tyranical. Corruption, lies and broken promises has been a major problem in the US for quite some time now, yet nobody has used their guns to reform the system. And why would anyone, the military and the police are organized and with far superior weapons and tactics. Nobody wants to die fighting their own nation --- yet someone is willing to slaughter schools and alike.
Unrestricted guns is a BS policy, but you can't claim that Americans have a right to gun down their government, written into their government founding document.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How does "the security of the free state" translate into "gun down the police if you dislike a new state policy"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Notice how the security of the free state is compromised by the fact that many random citizens wield guns they use against other citizens and the police.
Don't come here pretending a hypothetical BLM shootout with the police would be constitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
After all a Police Officer is a just an individual.....Isn't it?
Nope. The police force is backed by the authority of the entire nation through the democratically elected government and the country's laws. Shooting at the police means you no longer recognizes the authority of the American republic and its laws. Only criminals, terrorists, rebels or alike shoot at the police. The second ammendment specifically mentions "a well-regulated militia". Why is that? Because if the American government truly was tyrranical then it wouldn't be individuals, but organized groups who opposed their oppression. The abscence of such a rebellion indicates that America has NOT tread outside of the boundaries of democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny. If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
Where in the second ammendment is tyranny mentioned? And where is it written that individuals have a right to murder police offisers based on their perception of a given law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition.
TYRANNY: a state under cruel and oppressive government.
Does this sound like America? If not, then the second amendment does not support the use of guns against the american police.
Furthermore, the second amendment is talking about a militia fighting tyrani, not individuals. The writers obviously did not mean for guns to be used by any crazy person who believes they are being oppressed. And given that certain modern weapons easilly allows massacres in ONE pair of wrong hands, whilst old weapons would need a large number of organized soldiers to achieve the same damage, it is safe to say that the founding fathers made no statement about which modern weapons should or should not be permitted. With regards to modern militaries, there are drones, misiles, tanks and fighter jets; all of which are illegal for commercial markets. Thus, in practize, there is no armed militia capable of fighting tyranny in the US. If the government became tyrannical, any opposition would be slaughtered by the largest and most well-equiped military in the history of mankind. Keeping this perspective in mind, the second ammendment is hardly justifying the freedom of any American citizens to buy effective tools for creating death and destruction --- fighting the currrent US police is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sorry. I didn't know that presenting arguments backed with evidence would put your life in danger. Regardless, your expertise has surely been informative, thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I never said I agreed with his policies or actions. I just pointed out that he made compelling arguments when being interviewed and asked targeted questions.
I needn't address the points made by a scumbag
You needn't adress any point, you're free to completely ignore arguments you don't want to deal with. You're also free to villanize Putin and point out dark sides with his suspiciously long rule. But when you without evidence claim that he demonises the US, thats bs. Can you please show me some of Putin's actual actions or speeches confirming that Putin glorifies homophobic violence and demonises anyone who disagree with him?
Russia does just as bad and/or worse than the US, which is plentiful.
By what measure? Economy? Military? Diplomatic relations?
You won't know how full of shit he is until you go and live in Russia
Do you live in Russia? Are you an expert on Russia? Probably not. The notion that expertice in a field is needed to understand basic conclusions is a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
For your knowledge, no part of my initial points was my own oppinion, so don't pretend it is. Furthermore, your non-argument against Putin lacks factual support on top of failing to adress HIS arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The world economy took quite a hit the last year due to the pandemic and lockdowns, which we all know. Russia too felt this blow. Economy is a complicated thing, but the point made was that contrarry to many other countries, Russia does not try to solve its problems by printing new money. This was not an accusation or attempt to blame Russia's problems on someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bruh. Russia prints money of course, they do have currency. But their 7.5% inflation that Putin talked about was not caused by excessive printing in Russia, but in the world economy at large at the time. Context is key.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
@Bones
@949havoc
Any thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
When I became more interested in politics I eventually stumbled accross interviews of Vladimir Putin. I was surprised to see that he accepts interviews with American journalists, and that he answers every question clearly and politely --- unlike certain western figures. Being quite intelligent, during his long career he has accumulated a lot of knowledge. He is certainly very competent, so for me to automatically reject his viewpoints would be stupid and intelectually dishonest. I chose to listen to what he has to say, and it wasn't actually bs, but rather logical reasoning just from a perspective that wasn't American. I was compelled to rethink some of my own political and socioeconomic opinions. I wanted to share some of his viewpoints and hopefully spark some interesting discussions.
On interrnal problems of Russia:
- Democracy can't but be based on the traditions and customs of a nation. When the USA went into Afganistan they ignored the history and traditions of the people, and therefore their attempt at enforcing democracy failed miserably. The failure of USSR and the failure of American imperialism is that neither respects nor understood other people, opting instead to enforce their own values and interests. Russia will learn from USSR's mistakes.
- The development of the Russian economic, social and political spheres MUST be slow and steady as to prevent revolts and revolutions. Russia has had enough revolutions. The stability of the nation and living standard of the people must have first priority. When mass rallies in the west is met and destroyed by the police, it too is lack of freedom based on a preference for stability and order. Russia is a democracy, denying it is just a matter of how you define it. There are 32 political parties in Russia, and different departments are controlled by different parties. We know that corruption in Russia is a big problem, but it unfortunately is not unique. American lobbying, for example, is legalized corruption. Instead of pointing fingers everyone should focus on solving their problems; this is what we will be doing in Russia.
- Russia does have economic problems, but we do not print money like other countries. Our inflation is caused by being part of the world economy. We recognize the need to put much effort, focus and resources into the economy. We are also working hard to ensure that higher GDP translates into higher wages, this is a specific area of focus for the Russian administration.
Source: Interview on Russian internal status. Putin: Arms race is underway after US withdrawal from ABM treaty.
On the Russian international relations. Especially with America and its allies:
- American military excercises in Alaska, we don't care about them, its in their own territory, as such excercises should be. Russian military excercices happen regularly in the south, the east and the west, but only the war games in the west, near eastern Europe, has gotten western attention. We are viewed as aggressive despite containing our operations and infrastructure inside our own territory. Yet military infrastructure in addition to 40.000 military personell and 15.000 pieces of military equipment from Defender Europe is used in a military excercise at our southern borders, some was even airlifted there. How is Russia the aggresive one when we are the ones who keep our military excersices inside our borders?
- Gorbachov was promissed that NATO would not expand more towards the east. Interviewer: "where is that written down?" Putin: "Right, right. Well done, correct. You've got a point. They fooled him good". Everything should have been written down, but it wasn't. In fact, NATO has expanded, they have moved their military equipment close to our borders. America has also withdrawn from our treaties regulating the arms race, leading to both America and Russia accelerating the development of more and more advanced weapons. What was the point? And why is Russia the aggressive party? I have said it before and I will say it again, we are willing and eager to negotiate new treaties in order to again restrict and hopefully stop the new arms race of today.
- When it comes to economy, stability and predictability are the most important. Currency doesn't matter. America apperently does not value its currency. "it is used as an instrument against competition and political struggle. This, of course, is detrimental to the dollar as a global reserve currency" According to the world bank, among other things, settlements in dollars are shrinking. But we still prefer the dollar as an exchange currency. But we are also willing to use many other currencies for trade. We are ready to talk about transactions in Euro for gas trade, for example. Such monetary changes are acceptable to us. The way the world economy is developing, and the way America treats its currency, it is clear that multiple reserve currencies will be needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah I know about this. But small, specific studies cannot be used to make extreme generalisations like you did. Also, religious extremism and ex-atheism are not comparable; so your logic does not work either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You were commiting a logical fallacy based on another logical fallacy based on yet another logical fallacy. Just because some religious people hear voices doesn't mean that every single person out there is either atheist or mentally ill. We can't even know whether or not Zuckerberg has religious experiences or if he is just a theist. Heck, how can you even make the comparrison when you have no evidence of the so called correlation between religion and mentall illness. Your stated position is not rational, its purely biased bs. Next time you want to critique religion, make a rational argument instead of spreading myths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You know that Zuckerberg is mentally ill when he said that he was no longer an atheist.
This kind of accusation is biased and nonsensical bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
As a 16 year old, I strongly agree with you disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Would you mind elaborating on why its "effective"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know that it is truly random? Do you mean that the outcome does not originate from the wavefunction, whose properties are determined by prior quantum events. Does some supernatural "true randomness" intervene to change the outcome of a collapsed wavefunction? The claim itself is just a hypothesis since we lack any means to detect hidden variables that might explain the chaos and unpredictability. So why would one assume, in lack of evidence for this "true randomness", that its the only valid explanation for quantum unpredictability? It seems counterintuitive to attribute one instance of randomness to "true randomness" when the rest of the physical world and its many occurences of random events originates from deterministic laws. Not to mention the probabalistic nature of the wavefunction; which inherently suggests that the potential outcome is limitied and not truly random. It also proves that prior events shape the posibilities for future quantum outcomes.
Thus, I see no reason to tear down the scientific idea of determinism based on a new, unproven claim that "it is truly random". Plus, even if accepted, said change in paradigm would not undermine the clockwork universe. The addition of "truly" random events on a microscopic level is indistinguishable from the randomness caused by chaos theory. Or to put it in other words; quantum uncertainty does nothing to actually undermine determinism as a usefull description of our reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Quantum randomness appears to defeat strict determinism. There still is the fact that the world, by and large, is determined on large scales by determinism, not randomness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You understand quantum mechanics, what do you say?
Created:
Posted in:
Quantum superposition and the wave function seem to ruin strict causality by introducing randomness in physics. If the position of a particle is unknown untill observation, and the wave function collapse leaves the particle in a random position based on probability, then the universe is indeterministic. The question then arises: where does this force of randomness come from? Does a superposition have randomness similar to that of a dice? If that was the case, randomness in quantum mechanics would simply be a result of chaos theory, not of indeterminism. Let me explain:
- Rolling a dice could render it in a "superposition" with each numerical outcome having a 1/6 chance of occuring. When we measure it, the superposition collapses and we have a definitive outcome (comparable with a particles excact position)
- The dice is random because the process of throwing a dice, its trajectory and landing, are messy and chaotic. Because the dice follows the laws of physics, we could simulate a dice throw, and if we did, the same outcome would arise every time we use the same initial conditions.
- Thus, the result of the dice is not truly random, just hard to predict. It's "superposition" prior to us measuring the outcome only exists from our perspective. The dice always has a definitive outcome, and this outcome is determined by the laws of physics.
Throw this comparison, I have shown that true randomness is not necesarily the explantion for seemingly random behaviour. If we apply this logic to quantum mechanics, it is illogical to claim that true randomness is the explanation for seemingly random behaviour like in the wave function collapse. There is at least a chance that this uncertainty and randomness arises from deterministic physical laws, just as chaos theory suggests.
Created:
Why do people who have questions about a vaccine get tagged as being anti-vaxxer?
Because they simply assume that every vaxine is equally good or bad, and that refusing to immidiately take one vaccine means you think every vaccine is bad. People don't get that "anti-vaccers" who have taken every other vaccine is concerned about problems specifically related to the corona vaccine. They don't get that medical proffesionals with no ties to clasical anti-vaccers have refused to take the new vaccines, or that there is a scientific debate regarding the morality of rushing out vaccines.
In short, people are too stupid to see the difference between a conspiracy theory and intelectual discourse, so they just resolve to name calling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why is skeptical science instantly shut down
Science is by definition skeptical. Scientific theories first need to be mathematically and logically consistent, or in other words: they cannot be nonsensical. Then there is the rigorous protocol of comparing predictions with gathered data, not once, not twice, but all the time. Once an established theory is contradicted by new evidence it is quickly investigated and changed as needed -- or scraped completely.
Science is always skeptical. Scientific theories are always under intense scrutiny. The "skeptical science" you reffered to is just non-accepted science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Public healthcare means that everyone pays taxes and everyone gets the right healthcare when they need it. Nobody is unqualified for healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with you on the American government being incapable of providing public healthcare. You still have not rebutted my argument that public healthcare is very different from stealing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
does shifting control from corrupt private companies to corrupt politicians actually solve the problem?
I am not entirely sure. What I do know is that the US healthcare is unfeasibly expensive compared to all other countries. Literally any reasonable change is bound to improve the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
need is largely irrelevant to the actual distribution of produced wealth.
Neither police nor healthcare can be called "produced wealth". Their function is fundamentally to fight random mallicious problems. Your argument is equally absurd as to claim that firefighters should be paid for only by those whose horses were burning. These public services are public for a reason, they protect society as a whole and should be paid for by society as a whole.
You have yet to adress my arguments. Public healthcare is no more stealing than any other usage of taxmoney. I sincerely believe that giving all people necessary medical care is more important than buying tanks bombs and submarines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are one of the only countries where many people fear the doctor bill more than their health problems and die as a result. And I gotta ask, by "holding the poor accountable", do you mean shooting and imprisoning them? If you want to hold people accountable then why not start with politician who apparently gets away with everything? Why not start with the rich, who apart from avoiding to pay taxes and bribe politicians, also exploit and oppress workers while actively intensifying problems like the coronavirus and climate change. While black people are shot and imprisoned for minor offenses, police officials are by law protected from accountability, even in cases where its blatantly obvious that they acted horribly.
So please don't brag about helding people responsible. It clearly is not a priority or value in the US, just a bad excuse to ignore big systemic problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The American ideal that every service should be provided by private industries is the root of your healthcare problems. Healthcare in the US is among the worst and most expensive in the world. The free market ideals is totally not working, because of your strict entry laws. They cause a lack of competition where a few companies use their monopoly to raise prizes unhinged and exploit the population. Insurance companies and medical advisors make shady deals with healthcare companies, ensuring people gets the worst deals while business booms. Sure this "free market" approach to healthcare could be partially fixed by actually allowing free competition and stop the corruption; but the very idea that healthcare should be driven with only profit in mind is disastrous.
Created: