Do you agree that one should agree with the modern professional scientific intellects even if it is a lie?

[maryakkutty]

Do you agree that one should agree with the modern professional scientific intellects even if it is a lie?

According to modern Professional Scientific Intellects:

1. Science never searches for divisibility.

2. Science never searches for comparability.

3. Science never searches for connectivity.

4. Science never searches for sensitivity.

5. Science never searches for transformability.

6. Science never searches for substitutability.

7. Science never searches for satisfiability.

One should agree with these statements. Else, you would be branded as maniac! Am I right?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about divisibility of atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? Doesn?t mathematics teach you that everything is perfectly divisible by unity?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about comparability of atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? Doesn?t science teach you the methods of comparing and contrasting things?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about connectivity of atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? Anything which cannot be connected to your mind cannot be thought.

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about sensitivity of atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? How can one assay the cause-effect if no thing has sensitivity?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about transformability of atoms, molecules, ions,numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? Hasn?t science taught transformations of energy, matter, equations, sentences?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about substitutability of atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities? No computer can be at work if does not have searched for substitutability. What is going to be in the place of what is present now? What is evolution?

 

Doesn't science search, find and teach you about the conditions which could be satisfied (satisfiability) by atoms, molecules, ions, numbers, equations, words, cells, tissues, organs, and other entities?

 

What would your knowledge be if no thing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability and satisfiability?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you agree that one should agree with the modern professional scientific intellects even if it is a lie?

According to modern Professional Scientific Intellects:

1. Science never searches for divisibility.

2. Science never searches for comparability.

3. Science never searches for connectivity.

4. Science never searches for sensitivity.

5. Science never searches for transformability.

6. Science never searches for substitutability.

7. Science never searches for satisfiability.

One should agree with these statements. Else, you would be branded as maniac! Am I right?

Assuming you survive banning for inconsequential trolling perhaps you could answer me this. Who ever told you that "modern professional scientific intellects" made the claims you allege?

 

Science routinely seeks to deconstruct processes into their simplest elements, a search for divisibility.

Science has the art of comparison at the base of many of its techniques.

Science is continually seeking for the connection between events: cause and effect are axiomatic.

Science, in the application of chaos theory, for example, makes sensitivity central.

Evolution is transformability.

 

I have little idea what you mean by 6 and 7.

 

In short your claims are spurious, your concept of science seriously distorted.

[ajb]

Doesn?t mathematics teach you that everything is perfectly divisible by unity?

 

 

No. One has algebraic systems that do not have units.

[lemur]

By claiming the presence of a lie, you are suggesting a truth that contradicts the lie. What truth is it that you are proposing in contrast to this "lie" exactly?

[Mr Skeptic]

Things that are/were verified by science are useful, even if not entirely true. Newtonian mechanics, for example.

[CharonY]

Just to nitpick, that would be an approximation, not a lie. Other than that, Ophiolite's post applies.