Lol

Re. last night's conversation about trusting secular science not to have an agenda

Ohhhp

@Sar

Are you saying secular science is bad????

Or that "their agenda" is bad

Just going into twitch chat's typing TRUMP 2020

Targeting black people, wiggers

old guys with bald spots

and girls with "common sense"

streams that have rules for no discrimination with others

oof

I've been banned and timed out

good clean fun

also what where you talking about @Colouhmz

What do you mean, what am I talking about? Am I not clear enough for you?

"Just going into twitch chat's typing TRUMP 2020
Targeting black people, wiggers
old guys with bald spots
and girls with "common sense"
streams that have rules for no discrimination with others"

I was asking what this was talking about

"CLEAR"

it's just what it says

just arbitrary things that happen?

What do you mean

how could that be arbitrary

this is the jesse lee peterson discord

ok

Right

but you are just saying random things to just say them?

because some of them i guess could be political?

No, I said "TRUMP 2020"

I got a trump emote too

um ok?

Most didn't like it, some didn't care, couple liked

ok

@PineŦree Scientific method is one of many tools for revealing truth but not the ultimate arbiter; secular science is scientism (i.e. a religion with an agenda)

If there's a court case where you have 3 witnesses who all saw someone they know murder someone else they know up close, and are all sure, is it true or not? Scientific method cannot address this question. It's a philosophical question, and to apply science in this domain would be a case of category error.

The real answer is based on whether these 3 witnesses are trustworthy. If yes, then we don't demand forensic evidence, do we?

If in court we use one set of standards of how to arrive at truth, and we consider eyewitness testimony credible (if character witnesses testify on the witness), based on common sense, why would we use an entirely different set of standards how to arrive at truth for subjects that are entirely agenda-driven?

I wasn't arguing the scientific method can address all questions

My main argument was for secular consensus

Specifically science

@Sar