It's a reference to the strangely common phenomenon whereby black people have low battery chirps coming from their smoke detectors all day every day and either don't know what's happening or don't care.
No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
That's a useful way to do lab work for lab people who never intend their work to be useful in the slightest outside their lab. But for the rest of us, we might want to know why it fucking chirps because that's the first step to stopping it if we so choose.
That's important, because "Science" asks us for our tax money to fund their shit the majority of the time. So they probably should be providing tangible use at times for their works.
Historically, the limit has been technology and the isolation factor of being unable to consistently work with other great minds to fill in your own gaps. It was a lot more understandable to only be able to do part of the problem.
That's actually a good way for doing science, and it has led to progress in the past. E.g. Kepler explained the how, and Newton the why.
The problem is that he brings this attitude to other aspects as well, where he makes a total fool of himself and makes cavemen look intelligent.
I don't know about u/Graphenium talking about fullness of God's creation or whatever. However, Science really should look into why the hallway chirps.
If it's a consistent chirp that happens at the same time it's an HVAC problem. That's the only system that moves things on a timer.
It's a reference to the strangely common phenomenon whereby black people have low battery chirps coming from their smoke detectors all day every day and either don't know what's happening or don't care.
You can tell my job based on my response... I feel so dumb.
No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
You are trying way too hard.
3 year old account with zero posts. Clearly you’re just too damn cool to try.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
That's a useful way to do lab work for lab people who never intend their work to be useful in the slightest outside their lab. But for the rest of us, we might want to know why it fucking chirps because that's the first step to stopping it if we so choose.
That's important, because "Science" asks us for our tax money to fund their shit the majority of the time. So they probably should be providing tangible use at times for their works.
Historically, the limit has been technology and the isolation factor of being unable to consistently work with other great minds to fill in your own gaps. It was a lot more understandable to only be able to do part of the problem.