Women bishops

[MajGenl.Meade]

350 years later on, a host of other errors just as great, and the RC church still cannot admit that empirical science is a better method of determining the truth than their dogmatism is.
And who follows this kind of chronic incurable stupidity?
yrs,
rubato

Actually (as any fule no) empirical science has nothing whatever to contribute to the determination of metaphysical truth - or even as to whether there is or is not such a thing.

I see that beneath "who follows this kind of chronic incurable stupidity" there is a list started with the first name already entered. Well done that boy! Half hols all round!

[Joe Guy]

[rubato]

350 years later on, a host of other errors just as great, and the RC church still cannot admit that empirical science is a better method of determining the truth than their dogmatism is.
And who follows this kind of chronic incurable stupidity?
yrs,
rubato

Actually (as any fule no) empirical science has nothing whatever to contribute to the determination of metaphysical truth - or even as to whether there is or is not such a thing.

I see that beneath "who follows this kind of chronic incurable stupidity" there is a list started with the first name already entered. Well done that boy! Half hols all round!

You have not read the definition of "metaphysics" in a long time and forgotten it. If you had you would realize your post is garbled nonsense.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]

What is ultimately there?
What is it like?

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist [4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics but this can be questioned.

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[6] Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree.

The part of metaphysics which is now called science is useful and has improved the human condition both materially and by giving us a greater understanding of the origins of the universe..

Received religion is not a part of metaphysics but mere dogma and it of value as literature and as an insight into human mental pathology, but harmful everywhere else. It is like cigarette advertising, harmless if you ignore it.

Someone who is actually a capitalist would have to admit that the value of the remainder can be assessed by the relative amount paid for teachers of metaphysics vs medical doctors; not zero but not large. But they might want all state-supported positions excluded from the calculation as a socialist distortion of the market.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

What? ...2 whole pages and no one has yet figured out a way to use the word "bishopric" in this thread?

[Big RR]

And no one has said we can say "here come the bishes" either.

[Long Run]

What? ...2 whole pages and no one has yet figured out a way to use the word "bishopric" in this thread?

What a rook!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence

- robusto

empirical science is a better method of determining the truth

- robusto

Actually (as any fule no) empirical science has nothing whatever to contribute to the determination of metaphysical truth - or even as to whether there is or is not such a thing.

- some twat

[Lord Jim]

I think Indiana Jones had it exactly right on this score, in Indiana Jones And The last Crusade...:

Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

Science is a wonderful tool; it has enabled us to advance remarkably as a species; extend life times, cure all manner of diseases, walk on the moon...

But it tells us absolutely nothing about "the truth" or "the just" or "the good"...

That's not a fault of science; science isn't supposed to answer those kinds of questions, that's not what scientific methodology is designed to do...

Science answers "what can you do" questions; not "what should you do" questions; questions of that nature are inaccessible by scientific methodology; they exist in the realm of moral philosophy...

I recall a few years ago, (I remember it well because it was so ridiculous) rubato asserting that he based his "morality" on "science"...

That is of course impossible to do, because science has absolutely nothing to do with morality; it makes as much sense as saying "I use a strawberry to hammer nails"...

Gibberish...

It struck me when he said this, because he claims to be a 'scientist"....

A "scientist" with absolutely no conception of what science can and cannot do...

That is an, uhh, unusual "scientist", to say the least...

Rather like someone telling you they're a "plumber" who doesn't understand what you can and cannot do with a wrench....