Strange

I don't see it that way at all (and certainly not "Marxist" - what an odd thing to say). It is just part of the general trend of trying to improve the terminology used (in all areas of science). Just because a term has been used historically doesn't mean we must keep using it.

So you agree that there are cultural effects in IQ tests? (Which is pretty obvious if you look at the sot of questions in the tests.) I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a lot of evidence for cultural effects in IQ testing. And what does "oppression" have to do with it? That is a totally bizarre thing to say.

I would have thought that "population" is a more useful and general term because, in many cases, these groupings are not obviously distinguished in any superficial way. For example, there was a recent study of genetics in the British Isles (1) which found a number of distinct groups or populations (or races, if you prefer). But these were all people who would identify as "white" or "British". And while some might identify as, say, "Welsh" that did not correspond to a single genetic group specific to that "race". Other examples have been given by others. So why is "race" a better term? Because it suits your agenda? (1) Leslie 2015. (2) (2) What, not specific enough for you? "The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population", Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

What a surprise.

That is just repeating your assertion. WHY would it not last 12 billion years? How did you calculate this? How long would it have lasted?

That is not true. You just expect people to spend their time reverse engineering an animation for you. There is no reason for anyone to do that. I suggest you give people an incentive to do this: money.

You keep claiming this. But have provided no evidence it is true.

Or turned to plasma: https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/ "What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light?" Let's just say: it doesn't end well.

No. I gave you a link to a dictionary. You are too demanding. I should say that, of course, I am exaggerating to highlight why science and philosophy are different and therefore why they have grown apart. There is a lot of overlap, and some knowledge of one can help the other. For one thing, the methods used in science are defined by philosophy. But also, the processes a scientist goes through in designing an experiment are similar to those in philosophy: coming up with questions, analysing what they mean, what is missing etc. How can I test this? What other explanations could there be? How do I eliminate those? What sources of errors are there? How do I design the experiment to avoid them? And so on ... And if the experiment involves people (medicine, psychology, etc) then there will be all sorts of ethical and moral questions as well. Starting with, "should we do this experiment?" as well as "what should we tell them?" and "what information can we use?"

Because we don't (yet) have any models that work under those conditions. I'm not sure what your point is.

Interesting point. I had assumed that B John Jones was talking about the scientific community, in general. But maybe he means this forum, specifically.

Are they? Why does it give the right answer then? You keep claiming there are errors, but have still failed to show an example.

Much of it is. The gaps could be due to a lack of samples.

Why are you lying? I gave you a definition. You chose to reject it. That is your problem. What is that, then? What unity? Who is being silenced? What are you talking about?

Those could both be considered the basic steps of a scientific approach. http://www.merriam-webster.com

Why are you inventing a conspiracy and a conflict where none exists? What do you mean by "logic"? "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", also related to λόγος (logos), "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle" (Liddell & Scott 1999; Online Etymology Dictionary 2001). There are many forms of logic, for example: Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below. Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language. Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic. Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

It is not a false dichotomy, at all. Does philosophy make mathematical models to describe things? No. Does science make mathematical models to describe things? Yes. Does philosophy use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? No. Does science use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? Yes. Does science analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? No. Does philosophy analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? Yes. We have different words for different areas of human endeavour (art, science, religion, science, mathematics, philosophy, technology, music, engineering, poetry) because they have different purposes, roles, methods, and results. Why do you want to smash them all into one thing?

So why do you keep saying it doesn't work?

You are mixing up two different things and creating a conflict where none needs to exist. Why? Science is a methodology for creating models of the world around us. It works, in that it can lead to useful technology. The role and purpose of religion is completely different. The Bible might tell you all sorts of things, but it won't help you eradicate smallpox or build a GPS system.

And how is it relevant (even if it were true)?

Because the "scientific community" is a large number of individuals with differing opinions, motivations, goals, etc. They will agree on some things and disagree on others.

But philosophy, by its nature, does not attempt to do rigorous modelling and testing of ideas. If a philosopher does that, then he is doing science not philosophy. They are different disciplines with different approaches (and different purposes).

That doesn't appear to be consistent with anything in reality. Formal science might be characterised as, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

Where does "intensely competitive, hugely collaborative, creative, imaginative, diligent, risk taking, cautious" fit on your scale? I don't think you can categorise thousands of individuals in such a trivial way.