I sent you the actual etymology of the word science and discernment and you keep moving the goalposts.
Science is not made of “sci” and “ence,” you fucking retard. Ence plays no part in the roots of the word “science,” and it’s not even evident that it is even a latin or greek root.
Science can be distilled down accurately to the phrase “the process of discerning what can be known,” and that is basically what objective epistemology can also be distilled down to, so it’s funny that you bring it up. “Go read the entirety of Objectivist Epistemology” sounds like an insult made by a person who just learned the phrase.
And there is no lack of clarity in my definition of science. Yours is too broad.
Accurate is important. My definition is a direct hit on the enemy’s base; yours takes out the whole town.
Too much is included in your definition that is not necessarily science. Science isn’t just the process of knowing; science isn’t looking at something that is objective and assimilating it into our consciousness. That is mere observation.
Science is TESTING THOSE OBSERVATIONS. Aka discerning what can be known (i.e. fact verification). Your definition is just the meaning of the root words as if that has ever been the full meaning of two combined roots. No, that’s not how word formation works. Combining roots creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts; science as a concept has always meant discerning through testing what can be claimed to be objectively true.
You are full of hot air.
I sent you the actual etymology of the word science and discernment and you keep moving the goalposts.
Science is not made of “sci” and “ence,” you fucking retard. Ence plays no part in the roots of the word “science,” and it’s not even evident that it is even a latin or greek root.
Science can be distilled down accurately to the phrase “the process of discerning what can be known,” and that is basically what objective epistemology can also be distilled down to, so it’s funny that you bring it up. “Go read the entirety of Objectivist Epistemology” sounds like an insult made by a person who just learned the phrase.
Did you just learn that phrase?
We are saying the same thing
the actions and process of knowing
is almost identical to
the process of discerning that which can be known
Why are you arguing with me?
Happy pride month, you stupid faggot
And there is no lack of clarity in my definition of science. Yours is too broad.
Accurate is important. My definition is a direct hit on the enemy’s base; yours takes out the whole town.
Too much is included in your definition that is not necessarily science. Science isn’t just the process of knowing; science isn’t looking at something that is objective and assimilating it into our consciousness. That is mere observation.
Science is TESTING THOSE OBSERVATIONS. Aka discerning what can be known (i.e. fact verification). Your definition is just the meaning of the root words as if that has ever been the full meaning of two combined roots. No, that’s not how word formation works. Combining roots creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts; science as a concept has always meant discerning through testing what can be claimed to be objectively true.
Sounds like you don’t understand the definition of discerning.
Discerning is most certainly an action and comprises all actions and methods of separating truth from falsehood.