{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Krishnas Prophet:
12/12/2016 5:12:30 PM
4
Bump for discussion and good question.
I consider this a conceptual problem inherent to science itself: science is irrefutable in the sense that it does not allow other methodologies/ideas into its systematic framework of thought. If one proppeses, say, a view of reality informed by direct empirical observation, science will reject it simply on the grounds that it is not scientific. In other words, the results of empirical rationalism cannot be considered as evidence because they are not scientific. See how science is irrefutable? Sure, it disproves ideas within its own methodological framework, but step outside that framework completely and science sneers down at you with smug libel, or indifferent condescension at best. Maybe I am wrong and science IS THE universal solve all. But anyone that accepts it better be Damn sure WHY they think that, and be able to concisely explain HOW it is...
English
-
No, no one mentioned science, I said evidence.. observable hard facts, which round earth theory does have, flat earth has so called evidence but it has not been proven and is all speculation
-
When you say "proven" you mean proven scientifically. If we throw science aside, how does a round earth make more sense conceptually than a Flat one?
-
No, not scientifically, I haven't brought science into this.. only you. I mean proven as in a vast majority of people have observed the facts of round earth, your evidence is produced homemade and cannot be proven as of yet, like i stated provide real physical observable evidence and I'll be more inclined to believe you
-
Not to mention we've actually gone into space and flown aeound it.
