A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists? (Reply #14)

In the discussion thread: Atheist Q&A [View all]

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 05:12 AM

dmallind (10,437 posts)

14. A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists?

Ontology has no falsifiable claims, no testable hypotheses and no empirical data. Scientists and their imaginary "inside jokes" have fuck all to do with divine existence.

Somebody's already done the study by the way.....

www.ehu.es/ojs/index.php/THEORIA/article/download/489/632

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

17 replies	Author	Time	Post
Atheist Q&A [View all]	Silent3	Feb 2012	OP
Mostly agree. I think he short-sold humanistic morality a bit	dmallind	Feb 2012	#1
So you've read the book?	Silent3	Feb 2012	#2
Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt	dmallind	Feb 2012	#5
As for my own answers...	Silent3	Feb 2012	#7
there is no rational basis for an idea like Occam's Razor	provis99	Feb 2012	#8
So	tama	Feb 2012	#9
But it is very good for deterrmining likely hypotheses to investigate	dmallind	Feb 2012	#10
it is of zero value when determining likely hypotheses.	provis99	Feb 2012	#12
In medicine, there is a similar construct.	cbayer	Feb 2012	#13
A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists?	dmallind	Feb 2012	#14
Hogwash	skepticscott	Feb 2012	#15
Its NATURE!	elleng	Feb 2012	#3
You Are Searching For Certain Answers	1ProudAtheist	Feb 2012	#4
I can't get to the review that you're referencing.	Jim__	Feb 2012	#6
massimo's post	notinavat	Feb 2012	#16
Surprising that Rosenberg claims to be on board with all that; then claims the macro world is ...	Jim__	Feb 2012	#17
Pigliucci, Rosenberg etc	notinavat	Feb 2012	#11

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.