[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.2699258 [View]
File: 57 KB, 223x325, Huxed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2699258

>>2699228
Darwin's Bulldog disagrees with you.

>> No.2473890 [View]
File: 57 KB, 223x325, Huxed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2473890

Protip: One need not be Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, Maxwell, Darwin, or Newton to be a scientist. Most scientists only make small contributions like figuring out why sand makes the noise it does when jostled around (nobody knows).

Captcha: telln scientists

>> No.2390006 [View]
File: 57 KB, 223x325, Huxed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2390006

The BULLDOG!

>> No.2159113 [View]
File: 57 KB, 223x325, Huxed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2159113

>AGNOSTICISM. The term " agnostic" was invented by Huxley in 1860 to describe the philosophical and religious attitude of those who hold that we can have scientific or real knowledge of phenomena only, and that so far as what may lie behind phenomena is concerned—God, immortality, &c.—there is no evidence which entitles us either to deny or affirm anything. The attitude itself is as old as Scepticism (q.v.); but the expressions "agnostic " and "agnosticism " were applied by Huxley to sum up his deductions from those contemporary developments of metaphysics with which the names of Hamilton (" the Unconditioned ") and Herbert Spencer ("the Unknowable") were associated; and it is important, therefore, to fix precisely his own intellectual standpoint in the matter. Though Huxley only began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter to Charles Kingsley (September 23, 1860) he wrote very fully concerning his beliefs:—
>"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. . . .

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]