the scientific approach to 'what, how and why' may end in a loop
And you'll never know
Once you know the what and the how and the when and The Who and the everything else, you’ll *have* the why.
unless again something or someone tells you
You can’t get to the big “why” without the other stuff.
Nah, resting on one's laurels isn't adequate.
The "Who" is a historical thing
we don't even know if there is a who in the universe
The Who is a band
Ahh, this os where Faith comes in. @Scale_e
Mediocre at their best
so again you can't get why
Don;t get me wrong , i'm not saying science should be halted
Re: why without the other stuff.
Nor am I.
Faith need not be limited to the religious.
You see this is my problem
but i think there should be specific and worthy reasons to push the limits in certain areas
Science is of great value.
Faith is belief without proof.
it's the whole making faith based assumptions
it's just waste imho
Science is impossible without faith.
Well it's a controlled amount of faith
Eh, but Science is rife with faith based assumptions.
if there's too much it's not going to go anywhere
if there's not enough you don't get anywhere
Of course. You hypothesize. Then you test.
Controlled, that's an interesting thought.
You don't go with "I think this is true, therefore it's true"
In the hypothetical stage, you’re operating on faith.
That's the problem I have with faith
The complete disregard of proper evidence based thinking
Faith is not “I believe this is true, so it’s true” Faith is merely “I believe this is true”
Honest faith isn't even "I think this is true, therefore it is."
And not using the scientific method
I mean, if you need to smash something to discover the how and the why, all for some physical quest of self discovery, well i dunno, maybe im just paranoid
@Scale_e I'm just trying to make a point sorry for not using the proper terms
I'm just using what I can
Nah, all we can do is humbly approach the Alter.
Why is literally "I think it's true, therefore it is" in 90% of the cases
