Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: The scientific meta-narrative [View all]FarCenter
(19,429 posts)98. Conversely
Can you prove that prayer and supplication to a cosmic being has any affect on any physical system?
Can you prove that any aspect of the human mind persists after death?
It is religions that make unsubstantiated claims, not science.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My understanding of Descartes' thought is a little different from the way you present it.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#2
I find your response helfpful, and it clarifies my representation of Descartes
Thats my opinion
Mar 2012
#3
I think it's kind of interesting how appx. 14,999,600 years of something that might be referred to
patrice
Mar 2012
#5
is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago.
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#81
Okay, so make that appx. 14,997,200 years of something that was regarded as valuable
patrice
Mar 2012
#82
Good edit. And that one word is the difference between a discussion and a personal attack.
rug
Mar 2012
#48
I notice all the true believers in scientism have shown up to trumpet THEIR dogma. nt
Speck Tater
Mar 2012
#11
What the fuck is scientism? No seriously, this shit is literal nonsense. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#25
So basically its a perjorative used mostly by those ignorant in how science works...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#101
One of the most interesting American "anthropological" movies is "Dancing with wolves"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#84
Sokal's paper can be compared with the Bogdanov papers published in refereed Physics Journals.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#27
You mean publication of a ridiculous paper doesn't serve to undermine an entire field?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#35
A zinger? I realize that evidence will not have any effect on your belief system.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#91
So in post-modernism, if I say my paper is good, its good by default?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#95
If that were true, then tell us by what standards its claims are tested by. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#100
"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#83
"I think"; therefore thinking, the phenomenological field, is valid: from Descartes to Phenomenology
Brettongarcia
Mar 2012
#21
Do us all a favor, and no longer talk about science, I do mean at all...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#26
And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2012
#45
To be honest, I find post-modern theory much more off-putting than I find religion.
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#54
Can you cite a postmodern source that claims science claims to explain everything?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#72
I am not an expert on post-modernism; but the post-modernists whom I know personally have been
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#77