Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

So now I'm a liberal, which I'm not. I do agree with some parts of liberalism, or rather libertarianism. However, you still don't know the difference between liberals and socialists. The woman you are referring to studied totalitarianism, she even worked a lot on epistemology. That is something you should try to do.

You idolize science which is typical for a liberal and a socialist .

Originally Posted by lljadw

You idolize science which is typical for a liberal and a socialist .

So what does idolising a fairy tale make you especially when that fairy tale espouses a philosophy exhibiting megalomania?
The scientist in me really wants to know.
On a positive note the fixed and dogmatic views which are almost always at the extreme end of any discussion you hold on almost everything are very ISIS like so I guess you are on topic.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Quite amusing, but you are both right and wrong. The two concepts can never be separated. I know this can be confusing when capitalism is an economic system, but not a political system. Let me elaborate further on what separate and what unites them. First of all, when an ism is an ideology. It's an idea of how to organize the society, so economy is a vital part of it. So you when are saying economy is neutral, that is extremely wrong. There is a huge difference between a liberal market economy and a socialistic economy. Do I need to explain the difference between the two....really? If you don't get the difference, you need to visit a library. That is a place with a lot of books, I presume you have those in Belgium

I honestly hadn't looked at "isms" in that way, it is a very good point.

Science is for a big part the biased opinions from biased human beings,and the opinions of today scientists will be debunked by the scientists of the 22th century .
No one is giving any importance to the opinions of the scientists of the Middle Ages, what remains of the discoveries of the 19th century scientists, of the opinions of the scientists who organized mankind in superior and infertior races, of the opinions of the charlatans who predicted a new ice age, of the opinions of those who said that in 2000 the oil reserves would be exhausted ?
(Only ) liberals and socialists continue to idolize scientists,because for them man has no spiritual significance, they are, as most scientists, materialists,for whom man is only a number .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Science is for a big part the biased opinions from biased human beings,and the opinions of today scientists will be debunked by the scientists of the 22th century .
No one is giving any importance to the opinions of the scientists of the Middle Ages, what remains of the discoveries of the 19th century scientists, of the opinions of the scientists who organized mankind in superior and infertior races, of the opinions of the charlatans who predicted a new ice age, of the opinions of those who said that in 2000 the oil reserves would be exhausted ?
(Only ) liberals and socialists continue to idolize scientists,because for them man has no spiritual significance, they are, as most scientists, materialists,for whom man is only a number .

No, scientific work doesn't work like what you have described. To mention a few very old Greek dudes, you will probably recognize their names. Socrates, he asked a lot of questions and that is pretty much the foundation for scientific work. We still ask the major questions like Why? How? And what the heck is that? Plato was quite significant for the social science, he had interesting thoughts about politics and social structures. However, the big dude was Aristotle; and his approach was to study the world around him through observation and documentation (Eureka, a scientific method emerged) Have you been to a math class? Maybe you took Geometry? Have you heard about the guy Pythagoras? Have you heard about Algebra? To jump forward a bit, You mentioned nothing exist of what scientist discovered during the 19th century.....What? Wait a second here. Does the name Charles Darwin ring a bell. What he did is amazing. He published his theory of evolution and the natural selection in 1859. The significance of his work vibrates through the scientific fields of biology, paleontology and medicine. A very good example of how scientists work is to bring up another dude, Issac Newton.....and later Albert Einstein. What Albert did was to develop, not diminish what Newton did. Sometimes events occur by pure luck, and that is what Wilhelm Roentgen discovered, it's used still. Another major advancement within the field of medicine is what Alexander Fleming discovered. He, Howard Florey, and Ernst Chain got the Nobel Prize for it later.

Engineering; Everything you use in your daily life is engineered, the computer, the cell phone, cars, air planes. What all scientist do is to take the contemporary knowledge and begin to develop it without diminish the scientist before them. You are reading a lot of books about the Second World War? But do you know how a historian really work? He or she is focusing a lot on primary sources. These sources can be archives, diaries, all depending on what Socratelian question he or she is asking and then they do what Aristotle did, observing and draws conclusions, just like what the majority of scientists do.

Originally Posted by lljadw

Science is for a big part the biased opinions from biased human beings,and the opinions of today scientists will be debunked by the scientists of the 22th century .
No one is giving any importance to the opinions of the scientists of the Middle Ages, what remains of the discoveries of the 19th century scientists, of the opinions of the scientists who organized mankind in superior and infertior races, of the opinions of the charlatans who predicted a new ice age, of the opinions of those who said that in 2000 the oil reserves would be exhausted ?
(Only ) liberals and socialists continue to idolize scientists,because for them man has no spiritual significance, they are, as most scientists, materialists,for whom man is only a number .

You couldn't be more wrong, the scientists of the 22nd century will build on the work of the scientists of the previous centuries for example John Philoponus a Byzantine who pioneered work on physics specifically in the area of gravity and inertia Newton didn't disprove his work he expanded on it and Einstein took it further and modern physicists will drive it further again.

Think of it like the automobile the very first ones were rudimentary and barely recognisable by today's standards but every vehicle since that first one has been a stepping stone to where we are now.

Dr Mengele also was a scientist .
And, I would not praise Darwin, as his influence on society was very negative : euthanasia, eugenics, communism, nazism ,they were all heavy influenced by the claim of Darwin that only the fittests deserve to survive,and that unworthy live should be finished very quickly .
Darwin was not better than Stalin, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, ,, : they executed what he proclaimed .Which was that there were superior people and in ferior people and that the inferior people had no right to live .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Dr Mengele also was a scientist .
And, I would not praise Darwin, as his influence on society was very negative : euthanasia, eugenics, communism, nazism ,they were all heavy influenced by the claim of Darwin that only the fittests deserve to survive,and that unworthy live should be finished very quickly .
Darwin was not better than Stalin, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, ,, : they executed what he proclaimed .Which was that there were superior people and in ferior people and that the inferior people had no right to live .

Wrong again, Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, today we would call him an evolutionary biologist. The theory of the Origin of Species and the Natural Selection has nothing to do with different political ideologies. Charles Darwin had a thing for beetles, pigeons, and finches. When he arrived to the Galapagos islands he noticed the finches on each island had different beaks and it all depended on the finches food source. The finches had developed different beaks through time depending on what worked in that environment. The knowledge about extinctions existed in the mid 19th century, but not really how they worked. They can occur slowly or extremely fast, a slightly change of the climate can cause and is causing some species to go extinct. Charles Darwin compared samples of the extinct giant sloth with the existent sloth, he draw a conclusion from that. His theory had nothing to do with how humans behave to each other. Provide with reliable empirical facts supporting what you are saying. Not your opinion, just empirical facts

Originally Posted by lljadw

Dr Mengele also was a scientist .
And, I would not praise Darwin, as his influence on society was very negative : euthanasia, eugenics, communism, nazism ,they were all heavy influenced by the claim of Darwin that only the fittests deserve to survive,and that unworthy live should be finished very quickly .
Darwin was not better than Stalin, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, ,, : they executed what he proclaimed .Which was that there were superior people and in ferior people and that the inferior people had no right to live .

I have a growing concern about the Belgian education system.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Wrong again, Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, today we would call him an evolutionary biologist. The theory of the Origin of Species and the Natural Selection has nothing to do with different political ideologies. Charles Darwin had a thing for beetles, pigeons, and finches. When he arrived to the Galapagos islands he noticed the finches on each island had different beaks and it all depended on the finches food source. The finches had developed different beaks through time depending on what worked in that environment. The knowledge about extinctions existed in the mid 19th century, but not really how they worked. They can occur slowly or extremely fast, a slightly change of the climate can cause and is causing some species to go extinct. Charles Darwin compared samples of the extinct giant sloth with the existent sloth, he draw a conclusion from that. His theory had nothing to do with how humans behave to each other. Provide with reliable empirical facts supporting what you are saying. Not your opinion, just empirical facts

''The core idea of Darwinism is selection, not evolution . Evolution ...describes the results of selection . ''
Source : G.Stein :Biological science and the roots of Nazism . P 53 . Ref 10 .

Originally Posted by MontyB

I have a growing concern about the Belgian education system.

Now you know one of the reasons Brits want out of the EU.