Not sure what you mean, but the left really is anti-science and anti-realism.
Let's say it's 3000 BC and you have people arguing about the philosophy of the flat earth etc. There are ways to test this and eventually you can shut the flat earth people up (notwithstanding today's tiny fringe) by collecting enough proof.
-
-
(the "philosophy" of the flat earth?) anyway, these simple observations aren't "science" in any modern sense the fact that you're citing 3,000 year old debates is proof of how useless science, as a modern, formalized system, is
-
We could talk about more recent great achievements of science like the germ theory of disease, evolution and its mechanism, nuclear bombs and power, electricity, computers, and even the smallpox vaccine... I'm not sure why you'd say they're just engineering and not science
-
i disagree with pretty much everything there but this got tiresome i provided you three links if you'd like to debate with others
-
You disagree with nuclear bombs and computers?
-
I really don't understand your position here. Maybe you say they're "not science" or maybe you think the results are negative. If it's the former, well I think you're defining "science" unusually narrowly. If the latter, well, there are legitimately interesting args eg Ted K
-
Ted is a good topic, but in the end I think he fails to understand how unstoppable tech is. But I respect his viewpoint.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.