I see she’s practicing her next outing at the cinema in that picture

Had the trick explained to me not long ago You have to open the post, and then open the image in the post, to get proper resolutions of images in sync

Do you know if there are, or if there are plans for a “new” Turing test ?

Imagine paying… (Before any debat arise, I mean in this context. I have no problem paying when it’s fair.)

The rule already exists, living in the suburbs and working in Paris, I can tell you that they ended up forbidding them because a lot of people weren’t using them on the road.

Because humans are known for following rules to a fault.

Nope, his name was Monsieur critique, he only made two videos and the channel ended up being deleted after a couple years Do I regret not saving those videos

I don’t remember seeing Premutos here.

Found this one because a french YouTuber (a long time ago and he deleted his account sadly, I will always remember his review of twilight) made a parody review of it, with sentences like “There’s a cleaning maid that do Kung Fu !”, which made me want to check how bad it really was.

Had a great time, that movie is quite something for sure.

Why do you feel that you have to expressly go out of your way to show to the world that you’re stupid ?

Is it a competition we don’t know about ? Maybe a bet ?

Numerous studies have proven that WFH is better for production, morale of the worker, and then the plethora of perks that comes with not having to go to work.

It doesn’t make your point null, but you’re more or less just the exception that confirms the rule.

I do agree that they aren’t many, the ones who are actually careful about not mixing up their beliefs with science, sadly.

I see we do agree in the end, it was an interesting talk, thank you for that.

I do wonder if science really would have been quicker without religion tho. (Putting apart the time science treated religion as being heretic of course. I mean this in the “wouldn’t human find something else to be biased about/get their meaning lost in anyway” way)

Oh, I agree for the scientist in OP, dude lost his marbles or is coping hard on his cognitive dissonance, but my point was answering to the much simpler subject of “Scientists can’t be religious or they’re not proper scientists”.

As to the very fine line religious scientists must walk, if we’re honest, it’s true of many things that make the life of a scientist, because it is measurable and can be approached scientifically, doesn’t mean they will approach and measure it that way, humans are fallible, and they often do fail, but that’s another subject.

Ok, so considering that my original point, to which you answered, was that you don’t need to compartmentalize to be able to experiment science and religion at the same time, what is your point ?

That would apply if the scientists believing in their religion would claim to do so scientifically.

You’re again saying that a scientific can’t use faith in a case where he can’t know, or it means that he will do so for the entirety of his work, but we both know that’s not necessarily true. Because they choose to rely on opinion on this subject, does not necessarily mean that they do the same with their work ethic. (That would also mean doubting the work of a crushing majority of scientists, them being religious or atheist in most cases, unless agnosticism is much more widespread that last time I brushed the subject)

In essential, what I’m saying is because a scientist claims to be religious or atheist, thinking that their whole work should be doubted because of that, is a flawed argument.

PS : And because we can’t measure it, and don’t know if it’s “can’t measure yet” or “can’t measure ever”, we can’t say that religion is the antithesis of science. Which means we can think about it scientifically, we just don’t have the means to know if it’s correct.

And yet, what you answered wasn’t about that case, thanks for your contribution.

Wrong, there are so many phenomenons that we couldn’t measure, and could barely infer, and yet they ended up existing, sometimes surprising people a great deal in the process.

Sometimes we even have been wrong about things we could measure.

So yes, still a fallacy.

I understand that the logic mind doesn’t like “It might or might not, for now we can’t say”, when it’s about absolute, but that’s how it is, while you really want to claim that it can’t be, no matter what. Because you can’t conceive god existing inside the laws of physics doesn’t mean it’s true.

For the end of your answer, I already explained that faith and logic are compatible, because you just say they are opposite doesn’t make it so. And speaking of observable proof : the many religious scientists we have in this day and age, with much more of them being competent and well composed in their thoughts about religion than the one in the OP (or the many people in this post).

Stop proving that you aren’t here to discuss, but to “win” debates and start ignoring me, thank you

Very scientific answer, nice.

Which you ended by"The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence,", which is one of the fallacy in your reasoning, you’re reducing it to opinion, implying it can’t be treated scientifically.

Inferring from that, at best you could say that it should be left alone until scientists could even apply the scientific approach. As in, we don’t know, as you said. And that doesn’t preclude faith, which isn’t mutually exclusive with being scientific.

To be clear, what I read a lot in this thread, is being scientific should automatically infer you can’t be religious, because you can’t prove it’s real. But it omits that you can’t prove it isn’t.

Granted, the mistake might from where it started, IE this post where the scientist was being very unscientific.

You’re claiming a fact out of one of your assumption.

That thread is delightful in irony today, lots of self proclaimed unbiased and scientific, acting very biased and unscientific.