Sebasfort

3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true Principles, authority See what’s missing? All I see is the flawed logic of an hypobrain organism that probably adapted to a low energy environment surrounded by fecal matter. I thought that the notion of action and adjective attribution to objects would be clear to anyone that reads/writes on a daily basis yet you surprised me with this fascinating ability of yours to be clueless about pretty much everything you deal with on a daily basis. Your sole purpose is to subconsciously spit information you've taken somewhere else and seek other mammals' approval. You don't know how to think and you represent every single reasons why I choose to dissociate myself from the word scientist and instead go for the ''I analyze data'' description of myself. People that are on their knees like you and worship great scientists see nothing else but dust on the ground. You wrote ''3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true | Principles, authority See what’s missing?''' Implying that principle had nothing to do with incontrovertibly true when in fact the definition was about incontrovertibly true principles laid down by an authority : Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. 2 elements : Incontrovertibly true principles -> laid down by an authority Science is based on axioms that form the scientific method and those axioms don't come from nowhere they (were made) are supported and spread across the scientific community which itself is an authority. Google |Authority| : 3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something.a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert. So doing research about the subject of a debate before stepping in it is not the way it works for you... Fascinating

You wish I cared about you dodging my post by throwing ad hominem at me in order to feel more comfortable about yourself. You never ever considered the possibility that I could be right, you just followed the crowd without even looking at the definition of dogma. I'm the dick? You are the one being dishonest : you jumped into a topic against me that was generated from a parenthesis that was meant to be ignored if not understood.

The topic had nothing to do with this and I initially did not want to get dragged into this intellectually dishonest debate but here I am discussing stupid definitions. I'm doing you a favor by communicating to you and I'm very careful with my choice of words. You might have felt like I was diminishing you by saying science is a dogma on a science forum. But the thing is, I use Google definitions to communicate and I do not take in consideration the ''pejorativity'' of the words I use. Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Google |principle| : a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning --> Science is a dogma which principle is the scientific method and there is presence of authority. If you all want to keep jumping into your primitive unproductive thinking behaviors then keep doing whatever makes you sleep at night. 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

You just quoted an authority. Science is a dogma that collects rational data and isn't the data itself. I haven't read and analyzed every scientific paper that exist. It would be irrational to always assume |data in scientific papers = true|. The parenthesis isn't the main topic here and I shall provide no further information about it. The answer diverges, you are asking me where it converges. Would you try to find a finite limit to the infinite sequence of the partial sums of a divergent series? (calculus)

Communication/languages are not immune to the conception of ideas that can't be observed. Asking/answering questions is an interhuman and intrahuman phenomena which is driven by biology/chemistry/physics/DataTakenFromTheEnvironmentAkaObservation (the first three are dogmas I've put there to help you get the idea). Your question has no universal answer and is really just part of what you would call a social phenomena. The coherence of an answer is proportional to the coherence of the terms used in the question. ''Life'' and ''Purpose'' are not coherent terms yet they are used as fixed values in your question. Your question will not converge into an answer when it comes to reality/interparticular relations.