Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive.
This is true, but also it's prescriptive about different things... religion is focused on morality, which isn't the kind of thing science is useful for; morality is a philosophical and religious thing.
This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.
Or "the lord moves in mysterious ways," type hand waving.
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula
I wouldn't call that science, that's philosophy
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.
This is ... a political science theory relying on haphazard historiography, maybe?
I do not know anyone claiming to have a "science of morality" that I would consider to be scientific, or moral...
It's not worse than religion, it just is religion. Treating religion like it's science only convinces those that want to be convinced.
... But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what "science" says. Since doubt is the basis of empiricism, removing it from science destroys the utility of science... and that's bad.
Once you're talking about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" you're not anti authoritarian... let's not "no true scotsman" communism, being anti authoritarian is something that can be true of communists and capitalists but isn't intrinsically true of either.
This is a NATO proxy war in that NATO, an organization created to provide European countries protection from Russia's territorial ambitions, is providing assistance to a European country to help protect them from Russia's territorial ambitions.
I can't get over the circular logic of thinking Russia is justified in its invasion of another country by the fact that the other country wanted to be better prepared to defend against Russia invading it.
"I need to beat up my neighbor for trying to take a self defense class, because if he takes the class I won't be able to beat him up."
Dude, it only comes up if you're trying to beat up your neighbor. just don't do that.
Science and religion are two entirely separate things. Treating religion like science is bad, but treating science like religion is worse.
You cannot "believe in" science; it is not intended to tell you how to live a moral life or provide meaning to your existence, etc. If you try and make it do that, you are not being scientific, you're being dogmatic.
These concepts aren't related to each other, and shouldn't be compared.
I mean look, it's cool that they're doing this and all, and the idea or a trans Atlantic flight in 3 hours is neat for sure ... but air travel is already really damn fast, could we focus on making it less shit in other ways?
Can we get the carbon footprint down so it doesn't contribute so much to the end of the world?
Can we cut fuel costs significantly so it doesn't have to be so miserably expensive?
Yeah... mid 30s, stable healthy friendships, been with my long term partner for ten years, we have a nice house and two dogs, my career is going great, we're comfortable.
My dad has been obsessed with this my whole life. The dude just really likes American chestnut trees.
He's part of an advocacy organization that is testing blight resistant genetic hybrids, and planting chestnuts in their yards to preserve them in the meantime.
If you, too want to be obsessed with chestnut trees, I believe it's tacf.org
Because the only source for that (at present) is the Wagner Group, who have a (dead) dog in the fight and are not bastions of truth. NYT will be trying to confirm it before saying so.
Hate to say it but geopolitical, America's got a brighter future than just about anyone else in the world right now. Something to say for lots of reserves of your own resources, your own continent containing only healthy, friendly trade allies and demography that isn't in the midst of collapse.
Knowing America we'll burn the place down to spite ourselves, but hey
So like... yeah, sure, that's true. At the same time overturning a judicial precedent this well established is an absolute first, and public support for Roe v Wade started relatively low and has been steadily growing since then.
So when you've got all kinds of immediate, pressing issues, why waste a narrow political margin on alienating a big swathe of voters by publicly confirming a right that everyone already has?
I can't fault any individual administration for not focusing on this... I can fault the voters, though.
The shareholders can go and buy a diversified portfolio on their own, by investing in many companies, so they can derisk their portfolio without conglomeration.
If they already own shares of the conglomerating company, its returns will be lower (they don't care that it's less risky; they've diversified already). Similarly, the returns of the company that is now becoming part of the conglomeration will likely be reduced, which negatively affects shareholders of that company.
The benefit is really only for the people whose prospects are deeply tied to this company, and only this company... its management employees, who are compensated by the company (often in the form of stock that they can't sell till they leave, or that vests over a long time frame).
This is true, but also it's prescriptive about different things... religion is focused on morality, which isn't the kind of thing science is useful for; morality is a philosophical and religious thing.
Or "the lord moves in mysterious ways," type hand waving.
I wouldn't call that science, that's philosophy
This is ... a political science theory relying on haphazard historiography, maybe?
I do not know anyone claiming to have a "science of morality" that I would consider to be scientific, or moral...