Replies

It is subjectivity (and distasteful and even impossible) to say "I will only hold to and make decisions based upon what is objective, regardless of constantly experiencing things beyond my objective comprehension." (One may even say, as bb has said that "comprehension" itself is definitively subjective.) Therefore, it is unnatural (impossible) for humans to regard and react only naturalistically.

I don't often get involved in creationism/evolution threads, but I do tend to rail about people being subjective in the application of poltical philosophy. You are correct that pure objectivity is impossible, particularly with regard to physical sciences, where our faculties and senses are limited to a narrow range of perception. Politics and government are rather different matters, being abstract constructs of our own making. Moreover, subjectively making inferences where there is observed data that is otherwise unexplainable is unavoidable. Doing it when observable data in direct conflict with those inferences is readily available is quite another, IMHO. Not being able to be completely objective in all things at all times does not mean we should not be as objective as possible when it is possible and appropriate.

Evolution is a bug -- disease (( talk // rhetoric )) that supercedes reality ... manmade hyper science (( bs )) !

Why study a hoax !

Main Entry: 1hoax
Pronunciation: 'hOks
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: probably contraction of hocus
Date: circa 1796
: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
synonym see DUPE
- hoax·er noun