I have no earthly idea. I've just noticed that he seems to have a pattern of going back to erase the things he posts.
What was said that was so disgraceful...
You know I had an epiphany about this today actually. I realized that most individuals in religion and sociology are followers who do not think for themselves. Then I realized it is the same way with science. Most individuals only read the texts and memorize everything instead of thinking about why such is as it is and gaining an understanding of any particular subject.
Do you have any data, studies, references or links to back up your claim that most scientists solely engage in rote memorization? Or did your mind merely cause you to believe it must be so in order to make you feel better about what you already believe?
Your epiphany is wrong.
Ethics is other people.Ethics... Too many scientists have forgotten their commitment to basic medical ethics.
I have always thought that philosophy is simply a belief system. Everyone believes in something. For instance I just watched a documentary about the Chinese project to build a railroad across the Himalayan plateau. This unforgiving place is basically just permafrost. Some people would say that it is impossible to build a Railroad across such terrain. It stopped the Chinese for over 50 years. However, they built the railway in 5 years. They used observation and science to accomplish this task.
Citations are fine, I'll share as needed.Since when could anyone link to articles behind paywalls on here anyway.
Well 1st off there is no such thing as the "field of science".
Perhaps we should narrow things down a bit more to a particular field or area of science. I propose molecular biology.
Furthermore I'd propose to narrow further to examine the types of questions that molecular biologists are investigating. Specific example such as a lab of researchers studying a particular molecular pathway. So here we are with a lab full of scientists doing their thing, performing their experiments... why should they care what philosophers think about the scientific process?
Have advances in Molecular Biology slowed down recently due to the way molecular biologists are approaching their research?
I'm not sure what you mean.Are you using soft science yourself to promote an ideology that is favorable to your viewpoint?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I simply tried to narrow things down to a more specific field of science and then asked a question as it pertained to that field. I'll try asking in a different way.
Why should a lab full of molecular biologists who are studying a particular molecular pathway care what philosophers are thinking or doing?
Will the rate at which they make discoveries be altered by studying philosophy?
Will the work of modern day philosophers somehow alter the rate at which this lab full of molecular biologists discover new binding partners in a kinase cascade?
---
It's hard to see why practicing molecular biologists should worry or care about what philosophers are doing or thinking.
I must be bad at this,Also your arguments used probably half of the fallacies here whether intentional or unintentional.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Why is science wrong so often? Merck lists the usual suspects: pressure to publish and win grants, careerism, poor training of students, and journals that don’t review reports rigorously enough.