Moral relativism

Into the Night said:
It wasn't. Athens became a dictatorship.

This part is correct. He wanted a republic.

Sparta had nothing to do with it.

Sparta had nothing to do with it.

I suggest you go study that war. Sparta had nothing to do with it.

Plato is not Socrates. Plato is not Athens.
Click to expand...
Something seriously is wrong with this guy.
 
Into the Night said:
Not chemistry or science.
Neither chemistry nor science are based on subjective descriptions.

Subjective descriptions like 'wet', 'dry', 'hot', 'cold', 'bright', 'dark', or 'climate' have absolutely nothing to do with science or chemistry.

I happen to be a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and pyrochemistry.
I also happen to be a scientist, specializing in aerodynamics, weather, hydraulics and pneumatics, electronics, and the history of theories of science.
I also happen to be an engineer, designing, flying, breaking, and building and repairing aircraft, aircraft systems and engine design and maintenance, avionics, designing sensor systems, and designing computers for industrial uses.
I also happen to study etymology.

Whether you believe my credentials or not is your decision, but you cannot redefine science or chemistry.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means you must be able to test that theory directly, using specific tests, each producing a specific result. In other words, science is always about objective tests designed to destroy theories. As long as a theory withstands such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will continue to be so until and only if the theory is falsified.

Chemistry is a branch of science, and like science, is made up of falsifiable theories.

When a theory of science is transcribed into mathematics or logic, it is called a 'law'. Such a transcription into a closed functional system provides the power of prediction inherent in closed functional systems. For example: F=mA, or Newton's 1st law of motion, predicts that a force may be calculated for a given mass under a given acceleration, or what the mass is for a given force and acceleration, or what the acceleration is for a given force and mass.

This relation is a theory of science, since it is falsifiable. If any condition is found where this relation fails, it will be falsified. The theory and it's law will simply cease to exist.

So far this relation has held true.

That does not prove the theory true. It only means the theory has not yet been falsified. It might never be falsified, but that too is not a proof. You will find that a proof is not possible in an open functional system.

Subjective descriptions have no values associated with them. There is no equation for them. There is no objectivity for them.
'Wet' has no value associated with it. It is simply a subjective description and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Not chemistry or science.
Neither chemistry nor science are based on subjective descriptions.

Subjective descriptions like 'wet', 'dry', 'hot', 'cold', 'bright', 'dark', or 'climate' have absolutely nothing to do with science or chemistry.

I happen to be a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and pyrochemistry.
I also happen to be a scientist, specializing in aerodynamics, weather, hydraulics and pneumatics, electronics, and the history of theories of science.
I also happen to be an engineer, designing, flying, breaking, and building and repairing aircraft, aircraft systems and engine design and maintenance, avionics, designing sensor systems, and designing computers for industrial uses.
I also happen to study etymology.

Whether you believe my credentials or not is your decision, but you cannot redefine science or chemistry.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means you must be able to test that theory directly, using specific tests, each producing a specific result. In other words, science is always about objective tests designed to destroy theories. As long as a theory withstands such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will continu
 
Into the Night said:
It wasn't. Athens became a dictatorship!
Click to expand...
The tyranny of the 30 was quickly overthrown and democracy restored.
Into the Night said:
Sparta had nothing to do with it.

I suggest you go study that war. Sparta had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Sparta had everything to do with the Peloponnesian War, and some of Soctates students collaborated with the Spartan enemy.
Into the Night said:
Plato is not Socrates!
Click to expand...
Socrates didn't write anything, and Plato makes him the main character in 'The Republic.'
 
Cypress said:
The tyranny of the 30 was quickly overthrown and democracy restored.
Click to expand...
Democracy was not restored. Athens became a dictatorship.
Cypress said:
Sparta had everything to do with the Peloponnesian War, and some of Soctates students collaborated with the Spartan enemy.
Click to expand...
Pivot fallacy.
Cypress said:
Socrates didn't write anything, and Plato makes him the main character in 'The Republic.'
Click to expand...
Irrelevance fallacy.
Sparta had nothing to do with Socrates.
 
Into the Night said:
Democracy was not restored. Athens became a dictatorship!
Click to expand...
The oligarchy Sparta imposed upon Athens lasted only briefly before it was overthrown and democracy restored.

You obviously never even heard of the Peloponnesian War until you saw me mention it.

My advice is when you are reading about a topic you have no awareness or understanding of, just keep your mouth shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top