/lit/ - Literature

>>15572073
>>15572191
>>15572203
>>15572214
>>15572334
>>15572374
>>15572386
>>15572422
People really struggle with this shit for some reason.
Popper is providing a classificatory argument, not an evaluators argument. He is providing criteria for demarcating science from non science. To the modern idiot, "not science" means "invalid". That is not the argument. It just means a thing of a different kind. Popper is narrowing the definition of science to something more consistent and logically coherent. Plenty of paradigmatically scientific things stop being scientific under the Popperian standard. That isn't invalidating them, it's making clear what they are.

To act like Popper opposed the theory if evolution and supported creationism is fucking ludicrous. Popper not only assented to and respected the theory of evolution but he even took back some of these demarcation arguments about it. Even if that weren't the case, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT HE'D PREFER CREATIONISM.

Evolution follows logically from what we can plainly observe anyways

>>14516936
>a drug addict, are rationalizing a terrible habit.
I don't have anything resembling an addiction. I drink a lot of alcohol I suppose, but it'll always happen that I get tired of it and I'll lose the desire to drink for weeks or months. Same for marijuana. As for other drugs, they're exceedingly rare for me. Not an issue.

And I'm less rationalizing the habit, more pointing out there lacks a credible case against it. I'm fully open to reasoning.

>As a drug addict, you defile the greatest gift bestowed upon man, his consciousness, under the pretense of "expanding your mind", while in fact you are a slave to short term pseudo happinness in the form of a "high" or however you junkies call it
In other words, you didn't even read what I wrote. I just told you that it's nothing to do with happiness for me.
Why are you even responding to me? What the fuck is it with you religious people that you are so willfully oblivious to everything outside their religious feelings?

>We live in a day and age where people generally believe that gender is not the same as sex, and that a human can be something else than either male or female, so I do not really expect you to understand what I have written, even though it should be obvious to any sane person (an endangered species nowadays) that drug use is bad.
> so I do not really expect you to understand what I have written
>>after not even reading the post he's responding to
You're destroying your own credibility, if you're trying to be an agent of God you're doing a terrible job. If I were religious I would approach people with consideration and reason, as befits the importance of the task of guiding people to the right path and away from self destruction or hell or what have you.

>>14026850
idk why everyone is so excited about this comment
it's just noise
are you guys this mad at butterfly person or whatever they represent that you're going to pretend there's anything compelling about this comment