i don't understand, why isn't he scolding them

the tragedy of american atheism is that it merely rejects evangelical theology while retaining the evangelical mode of thought

"don't lump me in with bill maher, you ignorant backwards rube"

can't believe we're still doing death in june discourse in 2025. "hey nonny nonny the west is dying" yeah go fuck yourself

(david tibet voice) this is a song for platner's campaign, after it's dead

related www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmCK...

i eventually just linked them to the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's article on models in science and they blocked me too

look man just read some philosophy of science ok

plato.stanford.edu/entries/mode...

i work in data modeling lmao. the whole point of data modeling is deriving something useful from a complex system by simplifying it to the point it is parsable by humans at all.

if i say "there is a 50m bridge", that is clearly a simplification, right? if i say "there is a 50m concrete bridge," still a simplification. if i say "there is a 50m concrete bridge, here is a picture including force vectors," it is still a simplification of the bridge. do you see where im going

behold, water:

because the model is a useful contrivance. it's getting at a real thing but it omits, simplifies, and exaggerates reality. as do all models. our understanding of water is mediated by uncountably many interpretations, all of which serve as building blocks for our constructed idea of water.

but it's a model of water. why can't i drink or pour or freeze it?

q: is this water?

there will be new stories as long as there are new storytellers

you're making the mistake again by thinking it's a pragmatic issue of being "good enough at science" rather than a qualitative feature of human perception and cognition. models are simplifications of reality. they are stories that we tell each other with varying degrees of usefulness.

the idea that science is a work that can be completed is itself a completely unjustified modernist thought trap. science can only model the world, and all models are necessarily wrong.

the legacy of uncritical naive realism. "what are you talking about, 'philosophy of science'. i can tell what things are because that's just the way it is."

is this one of those performative males i keep hearing about