▲ 560 ▼ Quote from Penn Jillette (lemmy.world) submitted 3 years ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world [M] to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world 94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) The phrase "Science is still catching up" is garbage. If the techniques they are using actually work or produce results they were arrived at via some form of the scientific method, even if it is a primitive version of it. We didn't magically get to aspirin. People drank willow bark tea forever before the active ingredients were isolated and the method they got to it's effectiveness is a form of science. Again, if all knowledge of willow bark tea had been wiped out it would have been discovered again because it is a based in reality. If the techniques work, they work because they were found and could be found again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent [+] stappern@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fkn@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) The phrase "Science is still catching up" is garbage. If the techniques they are using actually work or produce results they were arrived at via some form of the scientific method, even if it is a primitive version of it. We didn't magically get to aspirin. People drank willow bark tea forever before the active ingredients were isolated and the method they got to it's effectiveness is a form of science. Again, if all knowledge of willow bark tea had been wiped out it would have been discovered again because it is a based in reality. If the techniques work, they work because they were found and could be found again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent
[+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent
[+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it's science. If it's not science, it's not science. Science doesn't need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it's not science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fkn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don't have to agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] kicksystem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fisk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Here's a book on what you're talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design permalink fedilink source parent
[+] stappern@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent