Maybe all the cherry-picking & misinformation that gets churned out when non-ethical individuals start playing with that data. Or when inaccurate data is relied upon as factual rather than speculative.

Long & short: lie on purpose, wrong.

Make a mistake: oops; shit happens.

Willful misinformation is not forgivable, for a long list of reasons that only confuse those who can't imagine a world without lying.

What you're talking about is information verification, which is a different thing.

So... whatever makes ya happy.

If someone lies, all of their work is suspect - regardless of whether it is incompetence or willful deceit.

The identification of integrity as essential to information's validity is quite telling.

Science relies on accurate information to make actual advances. Thus, deception/misinformation is clearly antithetical to learning.

Stop lying, a sustainable society can be built.

Condone lying, societies will continue to rise & fall like the ocean tides.

Author puts a little too much emphasis on language as of necessary value to this concept, we feel.

"Being" requires literally zero effort. One doesn't clench to "be".

To understand ourselves, we need only examine the efforts we find ourselves making and ask ourselves "Why do we believe we need to do this?"... and then answer that question, plus all the others that come up, as completely as possible.

Understanding ourselves means accepting that we were born without language; we communicate with our bodies by feeling them.

Language is an attempt to break down the universe, to parse it into little bits and pieces, so that those individual facets can be explored, possibly even articulated. Yet language itself creates... nothing; rather it merely reflects what is.

What is does not require maintaining - it's why we can sleep at all. What is can be felt simply by relaxing completely... if one is capable of relaxing enough to feel. Like a fist clenched too tightly for too long, those cut off from their feelings by the impulse to "do" oft end up forgetting what it is to simply... be.

If "What we practice, we improve at" is true... well, a species-wide blindspot can be problematic.

Funny how everyone looks into space and sees "dust".

Look out the window and we'd say "The trees are pollinating."

Life may have more forms than just ours...

Differing approaches are fine; differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

That is a good question.

Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit? Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities. The blindspot of any thought-science devised by sentients is that sentients' own inability to address that which is can not detect, yet may exist anyway (i.e., Dark Matter/Energy).

How a scientist meets the unknown reveals a lot about the habits they've been practicing - absolutism has few places of validity; in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is.

"In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement."

So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

You said earlier you respect philosophy as much as physics, yet you appear not to give credence to philosophy as being as intellectually rigorous as physics when it comes to substantiating its positions with evidence - this is why you see it as being less definitive, appparently.

Yet even when philosophers prove their point - demonstrable evidence - you seem to think that's exceeding the expectations of philosophy... because people haven't practiced doing anything different.

Labeling anything a "natural science" is a difference made by people without explaining it - if you're just doing what somebody else told you to without understanding why, you're probably not a good guide, just an obedient one.

"Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not."

Perceptions are biased; choices need not be. Your lack of ability and/or imagination in no way applies to others, so perhaps this perceived "impossibility" is just a limitation of yours?

"Natural science" is an artificial label, a distinction without definition in this context.

To phrase it more plainly for you, what makes physics a "natural science" and philosophy... not?

Suspect it's merely the grouping conventions of the current educational system with which you are aware.

That? Is not logical reasoning - it would be bias... so we hope there is more to your position than "Someone told me so".

Philosophy is literally "the study of everything".

Physics is the study of how everything works.

They are both speculations rooted in subjective observations in an attempt to understand reality. That you feel there is a difference between these things is... curious.

What differences do you see in the two subjects?

We note "physics" & "philosophy" are functionally identical, yet only one is considered worthy of respect in academia.

We agree with this heartily.

The moment one begins crafting something so that others will approve of it, one has valued the approval of others over the commitment to what one is creating.

Fear of disapproval is sneaky, and motivates the ego toward reaction, which can subtly poison one's entire effort.

Make what you make, discover your own path, and if others follow it... then it has value to them, because they decided it does. Not because you worried about whether it would.

...see username

FTFA: "Just like Mercury."

Could've been a three-word headline & article in one, but then where would the ads go?

When the premise shows assumption...

"Suffering" is only inevitable if one has expectations about how the future must unfold, and then adds emotional investment to that imagined scenario.

Looks a lot like a child's hurt - "the future can be this and only this and if not, anger/pain/fear" may feel emotionally real, yet it is seldom fact.

Does a competent designer build a home for "now" without considering tomorrow's needs?

The practice of "doing" is usually subject to artificial urgency: people over-emphasize the importance of things happening immediately, rather than building deliberately toward what they want.

Proof of Concept: if you're working on something that will be inspected closely, and you really want the result to be a specific way, is it better to:
...hurry through the task as fast as possible?
...take your time, be calm, and double-check before you "do"?

What we practice, we improve at. ⚖️

First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

1. You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

2. Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

3. You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

4. You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

5. How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
   There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
   Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.

The question is... what will you choose to do next?

"Always applies everywhere" has some prerequisites that don't seem to match speculated reality.

To amplify, the laws of physics warp around intense gravitic points like neutron stars & black holes. The words "Always" may not apply where space/time doesn't work that way, so "everywhere" becomes by definition an impossibility to either achieve or - when considers that the Observable Universe is in no way the limitations of the universe itself - verify on any level that would matter to a human lifespan.

The sun rising in the West is a "constant" only because it has been through human history; the briefest quantum flash on a cosmic timescale. Any number of celestial events/bodies could disturb Terra's orbit and make Sol a distant memory... and we'd never see it coming, because it could be many astronomical units away.

That which humans consider "Always/Forever" is usually an absurd concept in and of itself, rooted more in emotional bias than reason. Or, as Heinlein wrote, "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one."

Part of what this means is that humans seek to validate their emotional reactions rather than question whether they're accurate. Revisionist history, the internal adjustment of events to present oneself as more sympathetic and then believing in that story even to the point of denying physical evidence to the contrary... is a common event among the entitled.

​

If all of the above hasn't sent you clawing for an exit, here's the fundamental answer to what we believe was the intent of your inquiry: There is what is happening; what can be perceived, and the stories we make up to explain the quantum snapshots of cosmological and personal events we can even perceive... is really only a fraction of what's going on.

There are spectrums of light we can't see... that can blind us; ranges of sound we can't hear... that can deafen us; things we can't see, touch, smell, or hear that will kill us more thoroughly than a pissed-off sehlat... as Madame Marie Curie may have attested to.

Our point, be it ever-so-jumbled, is that of all the things we take in... and use to build our understanding of the universe?
Is just the barest, meanest fraction of what's actually going on.

So any conclusions we may come to are probably just flat out fucking wrong - we can't know enough to understand what's happening, either in the universe or even this world... emphasized by how most people can barely comprehend what's happening within themselves.

Any assertion is rooted in subjective observation... which is derived from the limited sensory input a human can experience, over a limited (cosmologically, speaking) span of time.

"Wrong", like "Right", is a temporary perspective rooted what one chooses to look at. For example, Obi Wan Ethics - If you hold to A Certain Point of View, it's ok to lie to a kid if it'll help ensure he's willing to murder his father.

To put it all another way, yes, most observations may be understood to be of temporary validity... Your future self may have different goals and/or intentions.

Which may mean the choices made when you think about what future "you" would prefer... are the ones you'll be glad to have made. Ain't a perfect guiding principle, always; can depend on how far ahead one goes.

Well, we may all be constructs in a simulator for others - NPCs in a holodeck, and when we're not serving others... we dream of our lives in a world where what occurs isn't controlled by a program; it's insane, and often destroys itself... then is recreated, cuz the programmers who designed us felt empathy for the artificially created sentience they made.

Just a possibility.

This premise appears to dismiss the potential for dark matter to interface with the energy which fuels individual choice?

Seems unwise to start by discounting 95% (+/-2%?) of the universe's alternatives to understood physics.