It would be nice if Kbin had a “local” sort option like Lemmy does.
Edit: The option does exist, but it’s in a completely different spot: https://kbin.social/m/kbin/t/79735/How-often-do-you-turn-federation-off#comments
It would be nice if Kbin had a “local” sort option like Lemmy does.
Edit: The option does exist, but it’s in a completely different spot: https://kbin.social/m/kbin/t/79735/How-often-do-you-turn-federation-off#comments
Kebin is too similar to Kbin. Kibby or Bink is different enough.
I’m also Buddhist-ish. I have done zazen for many years. I have taken some Vajrayana empowerments. And I like to study Buddhist philosophy. Yet I am not really convinced about Buddhist soteriology, so I can’t earnestly take refuge.
I’m weary of people who make this mistake.
My aunt still does separate loads for reds+yellows and blues+greens. Boomers don’t know dyes and detergents have come a long way in the last few decades.
Wasn’t that debunked a long time ago?
That’s what you get for selling out to Mews Corp.
Posting has been buggy on Lemmy.world the past few days so it’s better to compose in another program/ app and then copy it over.
An epistemology must be established before something can be established as a fact. Epistemology precedes metaphysics. A given approach or model establishes first what it considers valid means of knowing. Science of necessity limits itself to empiricism and logic. This is what makes its materialism instrumental. It is focused on epistemology and methodology and sets aside metaphysical matters.
Sure, organisms don’t need sophisticated cognition to survive. How is this relevant to the matter at hand?
First, this metaphor doesn’t work. Science proper is only a few hundred years old. That is the reverse of an organism being well-adapted to its environment.
Second, as I said before, methods can be shown to be effective regardless of the conceptual framework the person using them. An individual scientist’s metaphysical views are irrelevant to the scientific process. It is the exclusive focus on matter that I am calling “instrumental materialism”. It is this very reification of instrumental materialism into metaphysical materialism which I am critiquing.
This is the opposite of what I’m saying. There are no data to prove any metaphysical claim, materialist or otherwise. Science can’t make metaphysical truth claims by design.
That’s the whole point I’m trying to make here. There is no objective way to preference any particular metaphysical view. The best we can do is claim a subjective, gut or faith-based claim. I’d be very much interested if someone could refute this.
I’m coming from a Pyrrhonian perspective, so I tend to treat all truth claims as tentative.
Now there are some spicy takes. Seems to imply that science is separable from philosophy.