Science Is The Best Means To Discover Truth: No, It Isn´t, Multidisciplinary Philosophical Forms Are

Avatar Pope Hilarius II • 3 days ago who cares? Science is the BEST means to discover truth. I’m sorry your gods remain so hidden, you cannot demonstrate them. I'm sorry your beliefs are based on indoctrination, and not evidence. STOP BLAMING SCIENCE, AND ATHEISTS, FOR YOUR IMPOTENCE IN DEMONSTRATING YOUR CLAIMS • Reply • Share › Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Pope Hilarius II • 19 hours ago • edited "Ooh, love to love ya, baby." OK, it´s from a pop song of the 1970s, but let´s pretend it´s spiritual in meaning. Quiz: Who gave loving Commandments from Moses AND God 500 years after the Buddha taught about lovingkindness? • Edit • Reply • Share › Avatar Pope Hilarius II greenpeaceRdale1844coop • 7 hours ago No clue. But, please, STICK TO THE TOPIC • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Pope Hilarius II • an hour ago Going back to your original comment, your denial of God and "gods" reflects your own ideological adherence to scientific materialism, failure to examine your assumptions reflecting your lack of literacy in philosophy itself. As for your reply here, you are correct that there is a topic. However, you demonstrate how you lack integrity, and are a hypocrite. The OP title is "What Science Can´t Prove," and you failed to establish a rational argument in your own comment. You stated, "who cares?" You deviated from the topic by trying to dismiss it and assert your own unjustified and non sequitor assertion. Thus, you are a hypocrite now in asserting "stick to the topic." It is possible to make associations of looser statements, and form rational arguments. In your original non-sequitor assertion, a rational argument might go, "Science may not be able to prove logical and mathematical proofs, metaphysical truths, ethical statements about values, aesthetic judgments about what´s good or beautiful, or science itself, but science is the BEST means to discover Truth" At least that assertion is directly expressed in relation to the topic, which would give you some form of integrity and credibility. It´s unjustified and without adequate argumentation, so it´s little more than nothing, however. For anyone capable of engaging in rational argument, it´s worth repeating the oft-made point I make around here. Science is in fact scientific empirical philosophy, and its philosophical method is made for the study of physical objects and behaviors. It thus develops human knowledge about physical truths, as part of the larger philosophically based disciplines that study a wider range of truths. Thus, since Thomas Kuhn for one made an important point as a "philosopher of science" about the philosophical concepts that he identified as scientific paradigms, and their social use by people who form two communities when a scientific revolution occurs. The new paradigm is advocated by a new group in relation to a group that affirms the old paradigm. Are there some subdisciplines of psychology that are physically scientific, and others that are not? Sigmund Freud MD was a neurobiologist as he begin testing a hypnotherapeutic talking cure of relaxing and sharing thoughts about a physical pain. As the patient free associated from the pain, the associations became significant in following a meaningful sequence to remembered events of the past, until a foundational memory of pain was experienced emotionally. That was "abreaction," and resulted in "catharsis." It was from those social scientific empirical observations that he also identified the psycho-neurological process of "emotional repression" after an original experience of traumatic discomfort. That later became "converted" into a separate physical pain, in a process called "symptom conversion." It is thus that empirical philosophical methodology is the foundation of scientific philosophy itself, and in relation to people, becomes social scientific. The phenomena of human psychological processes are understood through words, as with Freud´s accumulation of observations, and later hypothesis of three components of the human mind, the id, the ego, and the superego. Freud shifted from his empirical observations of adults causing unnecessary, invasive, and traumatic discomfort in children, to an ideological notion of the Oedipus complex that imposed distorted intentions on children victims. He further remained primarily materialistic in his work. His legacy expanded the relevant conceptual tools in the field, including Jung´s development of the Higher Self as the Imago Dei, the reflection of God. His work referred to Aion, the Greek god of Eternity, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth, along with the collective unconscious. Thus, evaluating the meaning and significance of all these important developments involves forms of empirical philosophical disciplines that demonstrate that it is empirical philosophy that has been actually illustrated by "science´s" accomplishments, starting with Bishop R Grosseteste in the 1200s, and later more famously Vesalius, Copernicus, and Galileo. In fact, scientific philosophy´s development didn´t magically begin, but began in the context of Christians developing monastic schools into Universities, and confirming that the Universe and physical behavior wasn´t dictated by ancient Greek philosophers, but the metaphysical context itself of the Universe was lawful. Thomas of Aquinas took Aristotle´s rejected First Cause reasoning. Aristotle himself had been the student of Plato, who was the student of Socrates. Plato explains that Socrates was inspired to develop his method of philosophical questioning when his friend Chaerephon consulted the Oracle at Delphi about the "wisest man in Athens." The Oracle responded, "Socrates," the report of which spurred Socrates to begin asking men of Athens questions. Along with that foundation, Aristotle acknowledged Thales, who had begun making naturalistic explanations. Plato´s account of Socrates provides a specific account of a causal event associated with a spiritual-religious prophetic, non-natural phenomena. That spiritual event had an identifiable consequence of exceptional significance in human philosophical development. Returning to Aquinas, he diversified Aristotle´s rejected First Cause in relation to a lawful, loving Creator God through Jesus Christ. Bishop Tempier of Paris, shortly after Aquinas died, then also issued an authoritative decree in the Pope´s name against treating ancient Greek philosophers as unquestionable and in favor of the omnipotence of God. Aquinas also observed and identified the different basic areas of lawful study: Natural Law, Human Law, Eternal Law (metaphysics), and Divine Law (scriptural/metaphysical). Thus, "science" isn´t anything until it´s defined accurately as scientific empirical philosophy, a subdiscipline of philosophy in which philosophers study physical objects and processes. Is it the "best" form of "discovering truth", or doing philosophy? It leads some people to confuse physical scientific truth, with "actual, full, multidisciplinary, and wholly informed search for truth," so that is against "science" as best, for one thing. The larger role of empirical philosophy in developing therapeutic psychology illustrates how empirical philosophy is the basis of, and is larger than "science," as in Freud´s work and the extended efforts expanding concepts and understanding by Jung and others´. The historical sociology of scientific philosophy leads to the Christian and eclectic religion itself in its origins that show the operation of psychosocial cause and effect based on the specific spiritual-religious assumptions involved, and the very socio-political institutions developed. So, it is philosophy that is better than science in demonstrating truth, as Christians developed an adequate modern metaphysical philosophical foundation for systemic scientific empirical philosophy from ancient Greek and eclectic philosophy. Scientific empirical philosophy then supplemented moral and social philosophers as they developed the social studies disciplines. Again, your denial of God and "gods" reflects your own ideological adherence to scientific materialism, failure to examine your assumptions reflecting your lack of literacy in philosophy itself.