Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie  The universe worked fundamentally, logically and sound, from its fundamental substance motions, long before our stupid human race was birthed, in the bio-era. There's absolutely no science in adding the abstract, before man existed. So, I am of the opposite opinion of scientific origin of species evolution.
It is a choice not to include the choice as part of the foundation.[No, that's where you are wrong. All good scientists are well aware of the inclusion choices, as they've been well aware since Aristotle first laid it out as a choice, excluding the variable middle, to found his and our science...]
As I already said, Aristotle dealt completely with intuitive choice, in his ethics, and with the laws of science, clearly, in his physics. We still use his foundations, for sound scientific logic... The world just needs physical improving of its legal architecture___globally. Abstract ideas play their role, in this improving, but there's no action for the betterment of humanity, without physical action, whether law change, or administrations' changes. Too bad the simple-minded public, keeps electing the simple-minded leaders, but that's just a minor problem of elder democracies, as Alexis DeToqueville, already explained, over most a century and a half ago... |
First of all, Lloyd, you cannot take yourself out of the picture — even though I must admire you for trying. It cannot be done.
And Aristotle did receive a reply by intuitionistic mathematicians. A third way is basically an option, though it exists only under certain conditions.
Sorry, Lloyd, but you are using the escape hatch here. You are making the choice not to include the choice, while stating that scientists are including the choice (as in always). That is not true.