ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE. Software > N.A.N.Y. 2020

NANY 2020: quick generator peek

<< < (7/7)

There cannot be two contrary truths.
-Tuxman (December 26, 2019, 02:03 AM)
--- End quote ---
That would seem to be axiomatic, no?
What 2 potentially "contrary truths" are you referring to though?

Nowadays modern science has become a politically correct religion. As a religion science is rather inferior. Modern science has nothing to do with seeking for truth, it is just a tool used by the globalist elites to suppress truth and to indoctrinate society into politically correct lies. If science means to be a brainless and godless idiot I prefer to have nothing in common with science.

Well, it's a bit of a digression, but I don't think I would disagree with much of what you say there. I mean, look at The Royal Society's motto "Nullius in verba" - which is taken to mean "take nobody's word for it" - yet it doesn't stop them from issuing edicts of "scientific" hypothetical dogma, signed apparently by lots of their members.
That would seem to be 3 (three!) logical fallacies right there:

* argumentum ad ignorantiam (forwarding a proposition without any certain proof).
* argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people/consensus, popular sentiment - appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty).
* argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority; conventional propriety).
Fascism loves an appeal to the consensus. The German Population in 1939 was estimated as approx. 80,600,000 people (i.e., before they started killing off their Jewish citizens wholesale). Apparently the Germans were right behind their Führer to a man. One wonders: They couldn't possibly all have been mistaken, could they?

Regarding science, a bloke called Eisenhower nailed it in 1961:
In those notes, Haapala also writes (my emphasis):
In his farewell address to the Nation in 1961, President Eisenhower cautioned against the power of money from the government in influencing scientific research, and the “danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Andrew Montford has articulated how this danger comes about. Please see links under “Politicizing Scientific Organizations” and Article # 1.

--- End quote ---
-IainB (May 03, 2012, 09:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

But I'm still curious as to what @Tuxman might have been getting at re the 2 potentially "contrary truths" he seemed to be referring to.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version