In The Bible What Was Punishable By Stoning

Brief criticism of the theory of the 3 kinds of materiality Gustavo Bueno

Gustavo Bueno in his book "Essays materialistic" defends a pluralism materialistic states that physical reality is infinite type of material, of which we only know 3, namely:
1) The first type of material (M1) consisting of all things physical or corporeal reality of the outside (rocks, rivers, stars, etc.).
2) The second type of material (m2) covering all the experiences of reality "interior" (thoughts, kinesthetic sensations, feelings, volitions, etc.)..
3) The third type of material (m3) consisting of all conceptual realities (concepts, propositions, theorems, etc.).. According
Well, the "proof" of his thesis is based on the following:
1) An analogy between the numerical series (of natural, whole, sound, etc.) And type of material (m1, m2, m3) based on the apparent similarity between the extension of the concept of natural number to other groups which also are numerous, and the extension "dialectic" of matter primogenérica (m1) to broader contexts (m2, m3) that are not less material by the fact that not reduced to the original material primogenérica .
2) Where fact that the philosophical tradition (Plato, Spinoza , Carnap, Simmel, Popper, etc.) Always has had, although not shown except in a metaphysical distinction trimenbre of the 3 kinds of materiality.
3) In the argument ad hominem that those who reject this formalistic distinction is metaphysical (and primogenéricos and segundogenéricos , etc.) And that no true materialist can admit non-material reality.
Review:
1 - In analogue logic the reasoning is not demo, unlike deductive reasoning, and have no logical justification, ergo the analogy between numbers and sets the alleged type of material is not properly a "demonstration" (although some appeal to the design of Cajetan analogy).
2 - The analogy is weak because it does not provide us with testable other similarities between the alleged number series and type of material.
Demo:
a) The number of numerical series is finite (natural, integers, rational, real, complex). In contrast, the number of suspected type of material is infinite (ontological), although only know 3 ( epistemological level ).
b) The number of elements in the number series is infinite, but it is doubtful that they are an infinite number of elements of each one of the suspected type of material.
c) The elements of a series of numbers are also covered by other series of greater amplitude or extension (for example, the number 3, which belongs to the natives also is a number that belongs to the whole etc.). In contrast, elements belonging to m1 can not be included in m2 or m3, as these genres are mutually irreducible.
3 - appeal to "tradition" in philosophy, where almost everything is still in its infancy and lacks apodictic certainties , is tantamount to appeal to the "Catholic tradition" to settle disputes scholastic, and no more than a guise of the old fallacy of "argument from authority" or " magister dixit " medieval is not relevant in a discipline where the authorities are worthless, but only rational demonstrations.
4 - As an argument "ad hominem "is not really an argument but a fallacy distracting personal attack, then little can be said. If Bueno and his metaphysical disqualifying all materialistic (or claim to such), just because they do not follow their scholastic system would have to say that first demonstrate the validity of your system (not vulgar mathematical analogies prove nothing, but certainly are very persuasive). And secondly, do not try to be as dogmatic Marxists who in their discussions with third used the action to demand that the opponents to accept the 95% of the socialist doctrine as a possible basis for discussion ", leaving only 5% to debate ( Solzhenitsyn dixit).

Pacific Science Center Membership Promo

10 books that led me to the desert island.

The original game is one, but here are 10 lists in 10 ... so they endure.

1. Twelve stories against , Barbara Jacobs
2. The imagination book, Edmundo Valadés
3. art history, EH Gombrich
4. Lichtenberg's aphorisms
5. mysteries of everyday life , Jorge Ibargüengoitia
6. Mr. Vertigo, Paul Auster
7. The Bible (this is cheating, I've been in there about 60 books)
8. Some collection Sufi story, preferably made by Idries Shah
9. Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez
10. Book of Disquiet, Fernando Pessoa

Happy Retirement Wording

10 actors playing the same role, no matter what movie

(and stating that they do not necessarily bad)

1. Buster Keaton
2. Sean Connery
3. Clive Owen
4. Harrison Ford
5. Robin Williams
6. Pedro Infante
7. Audrey Tautou
8. Roberto Benigni
9. Woody Allen
10. Sylvester Stallone / Arnold Schwarzenegger (is that the two do not meet an actor ...)

,footprint And Wing Tattoo

10 things superfluous and useless that I'd be a patron

(and the idea is that a patron me the gift, because I do not plan to spend money on this kind of things ... less I remove the Melate in the coming years)

1. one of those magical ionic straightening iron that would transform my curly straight commercial eternal ...
2. the new cell phone that Motorola's that has a touch screen (and has no complex smartphone or laptop) ...
3. laser hair removal full body deveras work ...
4. a big one of many tele-inch flat screen ...
5. with the appropriate home theater.
6. a pair of Camper shoes make me drool with excitement ...
7. five books of art which I have had your eye on them, all over $ 500 ...
8. king size bed with 3 sets of sheets and quilt (not fit in my bedroom)
9. Why not? The lipo!
10. a round trip ticket and food in Paris.

How Long Do You Take Erythromycin

racist and Nazi Myths

Myth 1: "Aryan" race-Germanic or Aryan race is the bearer of culture (dixit Hitler) and a race superior to all others.

Review:
1) the "Aryan" race has never existed, and that "Aryan" was an eighteenth century term denoting a common language in the Indo-Aryan or Indo-Europeans, but a common language among peoples does not imply racial identity among them. For example, English is a language or language spoken by the English Mediterranean, but also by speaking mestizos and Indians of Latin American countries.

2) Even if by "Aryan" race means Nordic race is not true that this race is the "bearer" of culture, as the great civilizations of Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, China, etc. were not created by the alleged "superior Nordic race."

3) Through what that objective parameter, indicator, or "ratiometric" or "superiometro" can measure the "superiority" of one race or sub-race over another?. Is it through the average IQ of the inhabitants of a country ? if so, then the race "superior" would be the population of yellow race (Mogol) of Hong Kong ... that have the highest IQ per capita in the world. "GDP will be through such time? But in that case the China red and yellow race to countries far outstrips "Nordic" as Germany and, to continue its growth in a decade could even exceed the size of the economy yanki.En end, " what would be the indicator, oh fanatical racist, which would demonstrate the "superiority" of his beloved Nordic on other races that make up the "sea of \u200b\u200bcolor"?. Do not know, do not answer.

Myth 2: The race struggle is the motor of history.

Review: While there is no doubt that in history there have been ethnic conflicts, is an example of supine ignorance to pretend that the whole world history is reduced to a fight interracial and also there have been conflicts between social classes such as: the struggle between oligarchs and democrats in Athens (as told by Thucydides), the struggle between patricians and plebeians in Rome Spartacus uprising against slavery; uprising against the German peasantry the feudal nobility in the Middle Ages, the struggle between the bourgeoisie (with popular support) and the aristocrats in France during the Revolution, etc.. And, of course, conflicts between nations whose racial composition is similar: In the first and second world war faced by the peoples of Germany and England, despite having an equal racial composition.

Myth 3: The mixing with inferior races (Jews, blacks, etc..) Was the cause of the decline of empires like the Roman (Gobineau dixit).
Review: As you know all serious historians (except the racist charlatan Gobineau), the Roman Empire fell due to several factors that have little to do with the racial mix: economic (inflation), military (fatal reforms of the structure and composition Roman Legion and foreign invasions), political (inept emperors, anarchy, etc.) etc.Curioso that racists and Nazis blame the Jews of Roman decadence, in circumstances that the Romans in the last centuries of the empire declining further mixed with the Germans Nordic than any other race, then follow the "logic" racist would have to conclude that the cause of Roman decadence was the racial mixing between Roman y. .. Germans encouraged by the emperors themselves (sic). If a race had to do with the destruction of the Romans are more likely to be the Germanic Jewish, given that in many cases the Germans who fought as legionnaires in the Roman legions in battle against Germanic barbarians went to the opposite side is made up .. . her dear brothers race, thereby betraying the Romans who fed them (have to see how "grateful" that were "Aryans" with the Roman hosptalidad). Also incorporating of Germans in the legions change the structure of the same rendering it ineffective as the Romans ended up using cheap Germanic weapons and tactics (the same as the Romans defeated in the past) with disastrous consequences for the Roman military organization which, in the dessert cotribuyó the fall of the Roman Empire. Finally, we must be very ignorant or dishonest to ignore the obvious fact that the coup de grace against Roma was given by the Germanic invasions of Nordic blood (not Jewish merchants) were not perhaps the Nordic "Aryans" Alaric and Odoacer who dealt him the fatal blow to the imperium? Do not deposed the "Aryan" Odoacer the last Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus?.
Myth 4: We were and are the defenders of the Aryan race.
Review: Although Hitler claimed to 4 winds a defender of the Aryan race and were such a "race" (as racist theorists) the people of Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, England, the elite United States, etc. It is nevertheless true that most countries Aryans invaded his alleged Nazi supporters ... (sic) or did the Nazis invaded Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands? "Did not bomb the cities of" aria "England?" not declared war on the "Aryan" The United States in 1941?.

Myth 5: We do not never defended the Aryan race, but whites (dishonest Nazi revisionists dixit).

Review: There must be a ignorantazo or a liar for misrepresenting what he wrote on such Hitler in "Mein Kampf" in which praise for the "Aryan race" (Aryan-Germanic), and no mention of the white race which would include the hated (by Hitler) Slav and Latin ... unless the Nazis intend to copy the style of the tort "allegorical interpretations" of the priests that make you say to the Holy Bible (in this case to "Mein Kampf") that best meets the not so holy and earthly interests of Holy Mother Church (in this case to the Nazi sect turn). The fact that the Nazis were not interested in defending the "white race" is shown the same armed Nazi attacks against white people, or do non-white Polish Slavs attacked in 1939? "or were not white the Mediterranean French invaded in 1940? Or non-white Russian Slavs attacked in 1941?, Jeton etc.Moraleja for racist fans: stop repeating like parrots the "crap" written by ignorant fools and get to study history (not the leaflets and fanzines stupid) will be better loose herd of ignorant:-P.

How To Repair Seam At Leather Sofa

I gave away 10 things in my refrigerator inevitably

1. at least 5 bottles of different flavors of jam
2.
milk 3.
cheese 4. coffee beans, roasted and ground into an airtight vial
5.
ham 6. mayonnaise
7. coca colas (light and zero)
8. Ice
9. some decaying food
10. Beer orphan since the inauguration of depa earlier, in 2005

Waxing How To Treat Burn

The failure of sorcerers

The tome entitled "The Morning of the Magicians", misspelled by the "sorcerers" Gauls Pauwels and Bergier, became not only a hit (thanks to the ignorant masses who drooled borreguiles the new " revelation " pataphysical), but also became the Bible of pseudoscience whose gospel of "fantastic realism" was recited by the sacristan and altar boys pandas spiritualist journals wildest scene of the occult (in Newspeak macanera: Para-science), but the French rationalist Union reacted to such a silly string and bore his wonderful book: "The failure of the witches," rationalist and skeptical antidote to the poison of modern witchcraft P. and B., who refuted each and every one of the fallacies and impossibilities taradeces not only return but also the editorial monster "Planet" sorcerer Pauwels. Here are some refutations of this book that show the failure of the witches:
- "It is false to say that the world no longer plays the game right. The revolution that is announced is entirely due to rational knowledge. Nothing is built without reason. The great thing is no base to build anything. "
-" What would we gain from the scientific point of view, to study the thousands of pages of casters, visionaries, incontinent hacks whose works are sleeping in the library? The most notable, the most wonderful events that quote, they are completely unusable, because their stories are never accompanied by evidence. "
- "Now they tell us, if an electron is projected onto a screen pierced with 2 holes, observation by electron microscopy we show that the electron has passed the time by 2 holes. Well, "added P. and B - if one has gone through, there can be passed through the other at the same time. It's crazy, but it is an experiment. And underline the weakness of our reason refuses to admit that a body can be, at the same time, there and in other parte.Leyendo these lines either be convinced that an observer with an eye glued to the eyepiece of a microscope has followed the path of an electron and has seen him go through 2 holes. Not so, there has been no any comments of that kind, you can not select a particular electron. In fact the screen is bombarded with a beam of electrons is very weak even when containing large number of corpuscles, at the same time there is, through a photographic plate located on the other side of the screen, how to group the corpuscles, following interference circular shapes or different if more than one hole). These interferences are observed by weaker than the beam produced, causing the temptation of thinking that must be kept until the limit of reduction, ie until no more than a single particle. Hence to say that behaves "like if "had passed through 2 holes at the same time, there is but a step that sometimes cross a physical, because this formula is a convenient way to facilitate the development of theoretical constructs. This does not mean they have never thought of identifying this assumption with experimental reality. P. AND B. They take it to the letter without realizing that what they give as experience is only an extrapolation, an argument taken to its limits, ie the absurd, a procedure that could not replace the comments, especially if one intends to follow the nature y. .. to reason. "

Small Spud Gun For Sale

Excerpts from the book "The failure of the witches" (Editorial Jorge Alvarez, Buenos Aires, 1966).

"The claim by innuendo. Is perhaps the most practiced. The form doubting everything possible to conceive, forward all through a swing of suggestions that apparently does not assert anything, but repeated, reinforcing ... And imposing! I choose at random: "In this physicist has reason to believe ... This view is defended by X, Y, ... Nothing proves otherwise ... It is therefore legitimate to assume ... The USSR researchers claim, in effect ... It is thus conceivable that ... " Is indicative of the conditional pass, the way that both supports the statement that says no, but with half-words to understand the initiate. This slip subtle as possible in suspense as possible realizable, which is rapidly converted into certainty, leads to the strong acceptance of what remains essentially a hypothesis. "

" Think what they think the authors of the 'Morning of the Magicians' there is only one kind of truth: scientific truth, because only she is prepared to requirement of objectivity and control. What constitutes the legitimacy and strength of science is precisely its taboos which he is accused, these limits it imposes on intelligence to prevent loss. P. And B., although everything is not permitted, anything is possible and science, however, puts barriers of impossibilities. They make fun of a sage who was told the media to become invisible and later said: "Naturally, I did not test! ". Making fun of this reflection is not at all understand the scientific attitude. Try the talisman would accept the possibility of miracles, the supernatural, the indeterminism; would deny science, betray the thought and, moreover, wasting time and looking ridiculous. "

" This book (referring to " Morning of the Magicians ") is the book of reason abolished, the world upside down: the glorification of the irrational. But has the talent to attract interest, and create unexpected relationships, to leave without saying hear what ever imagined, to make people believe in witchcraft, never expressing. Everything in the spirit about human doubt, uncertainty and emotion, is echoed in the book by a great alteration of reality. Modified, truncated trafficked and knowingly or not-a prodigious documentation to make more convincing reality of magic. "

" Pauwels has made itself a metaphysics that transcends all the old philosophies, RP Teilhard de Chardin, which know it is more materialistic and more spiritual matter that spirit. Add to this unrepentant optimism Pauwels and have the philosophy of the Planet. "

" The 'witches' are relevant only insofar as they treasure a piece of scientific truth to be stolen. Scientific truth requires a seriousness, a method of experimentation and a concern for analysis, incompatible with the attitude and literary magic. When you want to study the mysteries of the world must start with a real desire to bring them the real light of intelligence, clarity playful and not so thick haze of vocabulary. "

How Much Do The Rabies Vaccine Cost?

Death "of atheism?

of Venezuela in the web analytics is an article entitled" Death atheism "and written by Juan Muñoz, where he conducted a" critical "(sorry for the misuse of terms) of atheism unfortunate that just shows their ignorance about the topic it addresses. For example, this character does not understand the meaning of Buñuel's famous phrase, as evidenced by his comment: "It is a typical English, but attribute it to nothing less than Buñuel, who at the impertinent question would answer that he was an atheist, thank God. The funny thing is that more true than in the boutade joke: because only by believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist. "For me the only boutade is surreal commentary Muno, and apparently does not understand that phrase Buñuel tells us the truism that only an atheist can be defined to exist in the community concerned, the belief in the existence of a deity, and that in the absence of belief in God or theism would impossible to have an A-theism (at least in the positive and strong sense of the word) that precluded such a theistic belief. In the same way that anti-spiritualism of the skeptics would be impossible if there were previously pseudoscience nonsense of Muno espirita.El that "only believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist" is a common fallacy of the "stolen concept ", as this twisting, twisting, maim and omitting the semantic meaning of the term "atheist": an atheist does not believe in God, that's a-theist = without God and therefore advocates a-theism = negation of the negation of theism or belief in one God. Who refuses to pretend that God believes in him is as absurd as claiming that those who deny the existence of Zeus is because, deep down, believe in Zeus (sic) also the skeptic who denies the existence of ghosts because it denies ... believe in them? (sic) go, I swear that whoever denies the existence of anything is because they believe in that thing, but it seems that the logic is upside Muno, go. The alleged "Christian atheist" or "atheist theist", which "believes" Muno, is a fictitious entity as contradictory and non-existent as the "square circle" or "anarchist state," and only serves to expose the contradiction that lies deep in the brain in such agnóstico.Muy fun but not serious and aware, is the following nonsense Muno anti-atheist, "the atheist loses time and effort trying to prove the unprovable: that God does not exist." How do you know stumps that the absence of God is unprovable? Logically, this would only be possible pontificate agnostic dogma if it were shown that the demonstration of the existence of God is unprovable, and mathematics can be shown that certain assumptions are unprovable, but I do not see anywhere in the Muno article as "proof", nor I see Muno faces and refute the arguments atheists to prove the nonexistence of God, such as the argument from evil or the argument of the incoherence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod or is it perhaps do not know?. If so, then Muño commits the fallacy of asking what the beginning and is intended to show ... which is typical of fundamentalist agnostics, still pontificating está.Muño clear falsehoods like this: "In principle, it is not proved the existence of nothing. If anything, we suggest the existence of something that is very different, that is, made part of the mondo and lirondo of what exists and, if not, ill be taken as a game. Wanting to prove its existence is as much like turning: from zero to reach the existence of what is to be tested. Absurd. What exists is there to be taken into account, there is a hidden treasure you have to look for special methods. "First, it is false that you can not prove anything: for example, in Euclidean geometry is shown it is impossible to square a circle, that is, square the circle there. Euler's theorem demonstrated by his lack of regular decahedron. According to the principles of thermodynamics, there is the perpetual engine of the second kind, etc. In the second place, not based on science that exists to prove just that There (sic) as if they did would be reduced to vulgar arguments in a circle (no part of the reality of apples to prove its reality), but hypotheses that can apply non-observable or detectable at the beginning of which is deducted predictive consequences that verified, may prove the existence of such entities postulated (as happened with the planet Uranus, the antiparticles, etc..). Muno curious that tell us that what is postulated to be already at the point of departure, a fact and lirondo mondo, but if so how to make a hypothesis to apply something you already know exists? Leverrier knew that planet Neptune that under certain postulated perturbations in the orbit of Uranus was a fact? if you knew Neptune before making their calculations "for lost time in so long and complicated equations? why bother to ask a German observatory to point your telescope at these coordinates whether the existence of Neptune was already at the point of departure, a fact?. We, thanks to science, we know many things that are "there": atoms, genes, cells, pulsars, etc. but in the past were not known or obvious and that, contrary to the assertions Muno, if they were: "a hidden treasure that had to be found with special methods, so I recommend to take a course Muño Epistemology accelerated to stop saying so many tonterías.Ahora read the catechism agnostic Muño pontificates from his ivory tower ... suspended in the air: "Agnosticism is, however, in a more radical and in other more neutral. It is more radical because it goes to the merits, not accept such beliefs, but is neutral in stating that the Lord in the same issue can exist that do not exist, the agnostic does not even rule on the point. Just do not waste your time on such a matter. "agnosticism is radical because it accepts the belief in God, but based on grounds or reasons that do not accept the belief in God?" will not accept the belief in God because, yes? if so, then agnosticism is a radical ... irrationality that has little to envy fideists irrational believers who accept the Lord's sake. Very neutral agnosticism is admitting the possibility of God, yet that is not very rational, and to admit an extraordinary possibility (as is the existence of God) without testing this possibility is to commit the fallacy of "free statement" and is so irrational as to admit the possibility of demonic possession ... just because. That the agnostic does not rule on the existence of God is not a sign of maturity, but of ignorance in the matter, and that agnostics are not aware that the existence of God if it has been falsified (Contrary to the view of the agnostic Popper) by the critical rationalist atheist that proves the existence of God by demonstrating the absence of his idea, which is impossible as contradictory as a square circle, and in fact, if the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is impossible, ergo the event object denoted by the concept is too. Similarly, if the concept of the squared circle there could exist no empirical square circles (or square rounds) in Muñoz universo.también gives us the following pearl of his parish bulletin agnostic: "So are pathetic efforts professionals and militant atheists, and Communists, with being religious beliefs. First, because the wrong target: atheism is a doctrine that argues against a particular existence, is not neutral, areligious, quite the contrary, deeply religious in their belief that God does not exist. But also because it assumes that you are removing the only arguments are irrational beliefs. The results are obvious. "Muno here makes a slip of confusing irrational anti-religious atheistic doctrine with religious doctrines (which are the exact opposite) committing a fallacy of bifurcation curious as to this there are only 2 types of doctrines in theodicy: areligious and religious agnostic, what happens to the anti-religious doctrines? ah well, for its sophistic trickery subsumes within the religious, which is as absurd and foolish as it would subsume the anti-capitalist Marxist doctrines within the category ... capitalism (sic), taradez that neither Mises nor Von Hayek dare cometer.Por true, how does Muño that belief in God is an irrational belief? where are the tests that demonstrate their irrationality? where are the criticisms of the rational arguments for the existence of God to test at least, that the existence of God is unprovable? answer: no, because agnosticism Muño feeds sophistical irrational beliefs and he attributes their enemies. Usandoun simile of the Bible, Muno "sees the mote in your neighbor's eye and not see the beam in your own." ;-) Amen. Finally Muño boutade gives us her latest showing how irrational and fundamentalist fanatics who are agnostics like him: "Take the two ends of Europe (not just geographically): Spain and the Soviet Union. Spain, after forty years of fundamentalist Catholicism and arrogant, has the highest rate of irreligion in Europe. In the Soviet Union, after seventy years of militant atheism and aggressive, 60% of its population believing declare: seventy million Orthodox, ten million Catholics, Protestants and sixty four million Muslims, excluding the unruly Jews. The lesson is very short, nothing like atheism religion to flourish, not least being the reverse true: nothing like religion to detach from it and come to think for themselves. "We are told that 60% of Russians are believers, this means that in Russia 40% are non-believers. ask what you enough?, in the USA only 3% of the population is incredulous, and if we consider that the average percentage of atheists in the world is 10%, we have that Russia has perhaps the largest proportion of ATEA THE WORLD, the result of that bastion atheism was the USSR. Then reality gives the lie to the stupidity of Muno, because as the English, despite its growing irreligion, have a lower percentage of atheists that Russia would have to conclude (contrary to Muño): "Nothing like atheism ( state) to distance themselves from religion and get to think for themselves, being no less true in reverse: nothing like religion to endure it in broad masses of the population, as in Catholic Spain (spiritual reserve of the West, according Generalissimo Franco). "

Psychiatric Hotline Answering Machine Funny

10 great moments in the history of male pickup

1. A hottie with the comment about the girl who had danced a tasty sauce "I would have given 10 years of my life to see you dance to that song"
2. The favorite freak of a friend, trying to mystically ligársela "I want to give beauty"
3. twice, just because they seem "You have an enigmatic look" / "You have eyes of charm"
4. Galán open the game and lost in a move check "I want to know what your dreams are made"
5. girl claims to be a woman of strong character; Galán Generic replied "I am a lion tamer"
6. strong-willed girl receives the following mail and dies of laughter "If you know what is the real place of women in a relationship, answer " of course, he replied:" What do you think is the real place of women? "and retreated Subject: " Deveras have strong character! "
7. Galán open the game and not even open the game " The stars tell me you are to me, "
8. comforting Unknown Type Distraught " You're not ugly ... I say, neither are Miss Universe, right? But if you walk with confidence, look ... bring them here "(hand to stop drooling) Unknown Distraught bellowing and making further therapy for years.
9. Subject believed to be irresistible to extreme "feminism" Well, Mom, and you also have a rich ass, what do you do? "
10. The same character, naked, lying in bed with a girl who just missed going to the bathroom: "Talk to the doll, look who is sad" Chava who missed toilet leaves to go to sleep the couch.

Sogo Hotel Executive Room

Science is the mother of philosophy pearls

Some illiterate morons like starving acevedito, who wants to persuade and convince yourself himself (in his own insecurity of being unable cowardly) to be a "thinker" (in vain, of course, since their delusional little speech are typical of the deep philosophical jargon ... Mery Poppins) spits us your Finally pataphysical vomiting (he learned in the Encarta) that philosophy is nothing less than the mother of science (sic) using as a mantra the stupidity of the new science began with Galileo (XVI century) with little question about "how" processes occur (which apparently is the only question that can be answered by science), because the question on "why" of things would be the responsibility of the metaphysical blah bla.Refutación bla: "Apparently this ignorant big head does not take into account, as we rightly said Gustavo Bueno, the ideas of philosophy are systematic constructions resulting from the dialectic of individual categorical science concepts (geometry, astronomy , acoustics, etc..) and worldly knowledge and technical (social, political, etc.), which implies that science and knowledge, from which emerge the concepts are prior to the philosophical categories to which they gave rise, ergo science and knowledge are the matrix from which emerged the philosophy as knowledge of second-degree foundation is science, and science without philosophy would be impossible to be based science or philosophy would be an unfounded and unscientific sophistry filosofastrería as unintelligible jargon and mangy of Heidegger, for instance ;-). hopefully this obrerito "Flintstones" in the build not you can think of playing at being an architect, since it seems this jerk is capable of laying the foundation of the work (science) ... once the building (philosophy) only to see the structure collapses due to its alleged "genius" architect chanta ;-).
He notes that this orangutan has no idea of \u200b\u200bthe history of science no less than the history of philosophy (although, yes, I am told their masters of the zoo this ape is a fine taster of bananas and peanuts ... well, something that your instincts serve as MONIL ;-)), at the time of the Presocratics, when he gave his first steps philosophy and science were like geometry (systematized by Euclid), astronomy (the predicted eclipses and Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric model), acoustic (Pythagoras discovered the mathematical relationship between the length of the vibrating string and tone issues) and technical and the molten metal, forging weapons, textiles, medicine, architecture, surveying, etc. that posibilitaronel emergence of philosophy and the "geometry of ideas "(phrase inspired by the science of geometry to be precise) of the Greek philosophers who also made contributions to science: Such developed his famous theorem and measured the height of the great pyramid based on the length of its shadow, Pythagoras proved his famous theorem, discovered irrational numbers and made contributions in acoustics, Aristotle systematized logic and made discoveries in zoology, etc.. to Plato gave great importance to the mathematical sciences, the foundation of his philosophy, so far as to send to record on the frontispiece of his academy his famous "no man may not know geometry." For above shows that both the stupidity of acevedito that in the beginning "of time? was the philosophy and then (sixteenth century) science as the arcade there was no science before Galileo (sic) are nothing more than pure piss asshole marijuana in the very safe copy of the poor parts of this ass of Icarito, since both formal sciences like mathematics and logic (Aristotle's Organon) as factual science of acoustics, astronomy, zoology, botany (Theophrastus), Static (Archimedes), etc. predate Galileo (to Copernicus' heliocentric theory predates Galileo).
"With respect to the raspberry static science that Aristotle (sic) addressed the "what" and only advanced science when Galileo came up with the brilliant idea of \u200b\u200bkeeping to the "how" I would say that:
a) this asshole gym confused with magnesium, and one thing is the metaphysics of Aristotle and are quite another aristotelian empirical research in sciences such as zoology (which were recently overtaken by Linnaeus in the eighteenth century) characterized by answering the HOW and not just what, in Contrary to the claims of this charlatan simiesco.Por course, neither the metaphysics and physics of Aristotle were "static", as Aristotle took into account the motion of bodies (as Parmenides did not deny it) as demonstrated by the argument of the unmoved mover that sets in motion the rest of the phones (the unmoved mover being a device to not contradict the principle of Plato symploké), and regard to tidal movement of Aristotle's explanation is better than Galileo, and Aristotle argued that it was due to the influence of the sun and moon (in anticipation of Newton). Instead Galileo held the erroneous view that the tides were caused by the rotation of the earth ... (sic).
b) what science is only concerned with "how" is completely wrong, because science do not just descriptions of phenomena (how?), but want to give explanations of processes = describe mechanisms (Mario Bunge dixit) and explain a topic screens is just one mechanism why?. Indeed, metaphysics does not respond any reason (that science does), since who says hypostatize metaphysical content in the world says, and who does hypostasis commits a monumental fallacy of reification, and as a fallacy is an argument wrong, ergo no may be an explanation of anything or answer any why.
Conclusion: I gained and lost acevedita = thinker. Amen, "p

Macaroni To My Cheese Sayings

Heidegger on Being and existence

The mezclapalabras Heidegger, with its peculiar jargon superkalifragilisticaespialirosa, spat the following pearls worthy of a ... Cantinflas (only dazzle unsuspecting troll brainless as "trinitarian" Acevedo = be = thinker): - "above all" is "is to be "(bright tautology as empty as the worm's brain this thing) .-" In the body happens to be the annihilation of nothing "(no doubt that that sentence makes no sense" stunned "to anyone who has a normal brain , which is not the case that chupaflautas and sectarian) - "There are (ex-sist) means: to be holding into nothingness" (it shows not only that little phrase says nothing, but also betrays no matter gray is this scribbler, whose filosofastrería holds ... at all, precisely)
Now, talking seriously and fry mandadando macaques to Africa ... the apartheid both Heidegger and the Nazi windbag "Nazi Mapuche" (contradiction in terms ) Acevedo, regarding the term "being" Kant says: "Being is evidently not a real predicate, ie a concept of something that can be added to the concept of a thing. It is simply the position of a thing or of certain determinations itself. The only logical use of the mating trial. " Indeed, "being" is a simple copula (preaching) that was transformed into a noun from absolute and metaphysical the time of Parmenides, but noun a verb is committing the sin of reification or conceptual fallacy hypostatization which, awkwardly, making the pataphysical SIGEN Heidegger and his followers as to what their rickety and few neurons are not allowed to learn that the verb-noun be saying "being is" is as absurd as a noun other verbs and write the boobs, "walking the walk", "writing type" or "the baton (with Heidegger nonsense) macanea. With respect to the" existence " (or "ex-sistence" according to the mutilation of the language of the calibration chiripitiflautica Heidegger), B. Russell says: "If such a thing exists, and 'x' is this or that, say 'X exists' is meaningless. Thus the existence, in the sense attributed to simple features, is completely removed from the list of basics. We find that the ontological argument and most of his refutations depend on grammatical errors. "So, Russell, following Kant tells us that there is not a true predicate and that the alleged" proof "of God is not ontological more than a sophistical trick, since it is impossible to infer a real existence of a simple analytical definition of God because, as demonstrated by Kant: "every existential proposition is synthetic" and is a non sequitur to derive a synthetic conclusion of an analytical premise ( Reichenbach). In fact, modern quantificational logic gives reason to Kant, because, as Jorge Estrella tells us: "The solution ruselliana to render meaningless the formula 'x exists', due to the fact already pointed out that the notion of existence is not verifiable predicate. Therefore, the syntax generated to signify existence ('(Ex) Fx', for example) requires the condition that the object in question (a case of replacing 'x') has another ( or other) property (substitution of 'F'). The notion of existence marked by the existential operator '(Ex)' refers only to that: the attribution of a property (other than 'exist') to an object determined. "Morale: follow the wise counsel of Hume and burn in a fire at all tomes pataphysical say prayers only pointless and banal tautologies, such as Hitler's Gauleiter nonsense of "Herr" Heidegger, and read the great philosophers: Hume, Kant, Diderot , Russell, etc. and study logic and science, if only to not make a fool as chantas Heidegger as a thinker troll chilote Acevedo = = be = anything ... brains, which, by their vomiting stated in the network, proved to be a faithful reflection of the low test scores SIMCE and illiteracy afflicts chilotes pseudo-students, but do not worry, acevedito, see that maybe you can idiocy and imbecility be very useful for brain Nazi skinheads (NSP), as dumb as you are very useful for the lively they're going to milk and do not give you work as a Chinese or a (whether of a sect or right as the Opus the new Acropolis) and you future slavery at the hands of a Nazi messiah, I have no doubt ezel "wise" purpose for which you were created by God .... = be = anything ... holy trinity corresponds Hegelian with psychopathic Trinity chilota acevedo = be = thinker ... is it that this crazy insane "shit's mate" is believed triune God or do I put the names are just the result of mental disease of "multiple personalities" that mariguanero mongolito have it? oh, is there a madhouse out there for chilanga acevedo takes the fresh wind to the nearest mental hospital, please? look it gives comemaní ape embarrassment, kids.
Bibliography, "Letter on Humanism" in Martin Heidegger .- "What is metaphysics" of Martin Heidegger .- "Critique of Pure Reason Immanuel Kant .-" Logical Atomism "by Bertrand Russell .-" scientific philosophy " Hans Reichenbach .- "Science and Philosophy" Jorge Estrella.

Free Black Damask Pattern Clipart

10 Requirements to be a young independent Mexican

1. Mexican clothing designer independent.
2. have friends who are independent young Mexican filmmakers.
3. live in an apartment in the Condesa-Roma-Escandon, San Miguel Chapultepec.
4. music published by independent Mexican labels.
read magazines
5. independent Mexican art, design, literature or Such (extra point if you write for some).
6. decorate your apartment with objects constructed by independent Mexican designers.
7. part of a group of independent Mexican ... Something!
8. go to all the openings of all expos of Mexican artists independent (Mexican galleries independent, of course)
9. drinking coffee in small cafes independent Mexican (or at Starbuck's, which is almost the same )
10. do super group in any Wal Mart store.

Genital Wart Removal Freezing Recovery

10 things I love about my job.

1. Have much time for me.
2. Power nap with my two cats on top.
3. Being who has (almost) the last word.
4. Prepare some kinds of last minute and not be noticed.
5. Have time to watch TV in the evenings.
6. It gives me a wonderful excuse to spend my life reading.
7. Now I research a lot of songs I like.
8. Going to museums is my obligation.
9. Incomprehensible leave work (if they were to class understand, ha).
10. Find once a semester, a student who has something in his head.

Wwe Smackdown On Nilesat

Heidegger was a Nazi and a sophist

On my first charge, I quote the book pro-Nazi "100 views on Hitler", which quoted the following opinion on the Führer of the Nazi party member and philosophaster Martin Heidegger: "The National Socialist Revolution is not simply the seizure of power by another party that have grown for this purpose. On the contrary, this revolution brings the total change of our German existence ... Seek not the rules of your being in the dogmas and ideas. The Fuehrer himself, and he alone, is the German reality of today and tomorrow, it's their law ... not the dogma or rational truths, must be constructed in standards of conduct. Today and always, the Führer is the only one qualified to decide what is good and what is bad. The Führer is our only law. "Neither Goebbels, hear!. With respect to his pseudo-philosophy (or rather anti-philosophy) we know that existentialism is a variant of subjective idealism that irrational part of the unit would be subject-object embodied in a "being" irrational, because to acquire consciousness " existence, "the subject must live a" limit situation "between life and death, being the" intuition "opposed to reason the means to access the world of" existence. "Review: Heidegger's subjective idealism is false, reductio ad absurdum that leads to solipsism (only myself) and that end is unrealistic and contradictory. It is also wrong to claim that external reality depends on the intuition or thought of subject when the subject itself is a natural part of that reality is governed by objective laws. If the world and its laws were a subjective construction of the subject, suffice it mere desire to bracket the world's laws, but nobody in practice such a serious blunder, and that no one crosses a street when a vehicle passes "imagined by the subject." There will be something that this "subjective fiction" hit him and kill. Of course, no one really believes that there are no objective laws because, after all, nobody is as parallel as to throw a 40 th floor to show how "subjective" which is the law of gravity, right?. With respect intuitionalism irrationalism that exudes old-fashioned smelling Heideggerian existentialism, we can say that it is wrong to claim that without reason and logic can penetrate the reality that the scientific method, which is the only one that allows access to the world, is rational-logical (to empirical pair) as shown by the fact that science be used concepts, judgments and chains of reasoning that are logical forms, together with the logical connectives "and" (disjunction), "or" (conjunction), "if .. . then ", etc. Also used in science logic operations of deduction, induction, analogy, etc. and logical inference rules like modus ponens" and "modus tollens" etc. And to the same sophists irrationalists use reason and logic in everyday life when deduced consequences (logical deduction), making comparisons (analogies), etc. and, of course, these parents kittens who preach without reason, but do not practice strictly obey the principles of logic, since the most stupid or irrational whistleblowers (or almost, because in that tribe is everything) believe that the passage of micro-bus that costs, say 380 pesos, and it cost 700 pesos at a time, and this violates the principle of non-contradiction (p ~ p = F) and it would be cheating too moron driver. That's not thinking about it! Right?. Before sacrifice all that spit and pretend taradeces think before I ripped my bucks, more missing man !;-). With regard to the "intuition" or "direct contemplation" to claim that intuition is in conflict with the reason is purely free and ad-hoc, as philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, etc.., although the differing discursive thought, not opposed to it as do the irrationality. In fact, Locke believed that the ideas of intellectual intuition were taken from the experience, and is irrelevant to science and scientific philosophy what the context of discovery of a thesis (a dream, imagination, a metaphysical belief, etc. ), since what matters is the context of justification (Reichenbach) in which verifies the authenticity of the hipótesis.Con about that nonsense that only they are aware of existing in an extreme situation, it is easily disproved by asking anyone who travels on the street if it is "aware of existing ": If you answer" yes "this refutes the dogma of Heidegger charlatan because this guy is aware that there is not in an" extreme situation "(unless someone thinks that making a simple and stupid question is an experience" the limit. ") following the" logic "of Heidegger (to call it somehow) he too was aware of" existing "given that when he wrote boutade that he was not close to death ... unless, of course, that his editor as threatening to break the contract if they did not produce a new tome unintelligible to the ignorant facherío consumption, look at those things are the bread of life and death, eh:-DA the way, the essence of existence is not a situation to the limit as Heidegger argues that chupaflautas, which is nothing more than rationalization, in a language of images, the fear engendered by capitalist reality (uncertainty work, fear of the future, etc..), but the subject, as all objective existence is material and matter is what actually exists (to the brain and the body of this charlatanazo was not an abstract matter and "Being-in-the-world"), and the materialist philosophy (a philosophy and true philosophy) is the only one who can deal successfully with the irrationality crap they were (and are) the breeding ground of the Nazi-idiotología Fascist and other trifles as the postmodern irrationalism conservative and pro-capitalist.

Thanksgiving Vegetable Dishes

chanta fallacies and myths of the "holy" Everything is

1-Non sequitur fallacy: from the premise not the conclusion follows, since there is no logical connection between them. "Fabric comes from the time of Christ because it found traces of pollen and plants from the Middle East. "criticism: so what?, also in the Middle Ages had the pollen and the plants of the Near East that could adhere to a fabric of the area that later was exported to Europe.

2-Fallacy blatant lie: "The symposium did not resolve the controversy over the age of the shroud to recognize the regularity of carbon-14 tests carried out in 1988, under which indicated the shroud dated from the Middle Ages . But he added that we should not rule out a possible contamination of the fabric that has been distorting the results. "criticism: Here lies the lie to pretend that pollution invalidate the results of the analysis of carbon 14 in the 3 laboratories that led out, in circumstances that these 3 laboratories CLEAN TEST BEFORE, WITH DIFFERENT Technically, all traces of impurities, LIPIDS, ETC. YOU MAY HAVE THE Shroud, which is a standard procedure that applies before any dating any sample to be tested in any laboratory in the world.

3-Fallacy of begging the dispute or begging the question:
ej1: "However, scientists could not explain this phenomenon, a fact that makes me doubt the scientific canons, because if I refer to science, all people to die emanate an energy similar to that of the holy sheet, but with less intensity than that found in the shroud. "criticism: what type of energy emitted all meats when stretching the leg? what frequency, wavelength and intensity is the mysterious "energy"? what part of the electromagnetic spectrum that enigmatic figure "energy"? what "science" supports the existence of this "energy" post- mortem and what evidence has to support it? "or will the chatter about this charlatan who confuse science with pseudo-scientific charlatans and tomfoolery like him?.

ej2: "it is estimated that, for example, 10% of the weight of the sheet corresponds to organic matter added to it over the centuries, and the presence of an unknown radiation that altered the genuine carbon percentages of flax, and factors such as Chambéry fire, leading to melting of the silver chest containing her canvas and that upset the purity of the samples. "criticism: It was noted that samples of the Shroud of Turin were washed with different techniques and products (hydrochloric acid, oh Na, detergents, ultrasonic bath, etc..), ergo it is wrong to say that the sample was not cleaned of organic matter or ash and other impurities result of fire in Chambéry and therefore , is a lie that they "upset the purity of the samples. but what's really neat is to defend the supposed authenticity of the cloth entering the blunder that" radiation unknown "(sic) would upset the purity of the samples. how do you know that the cloth was affected by an" unknown radiation "if the allegedly was ... unknown such radiation? What empirical evidence is of such" unknown radiation? what if it was "unknown" how do we know if it was a "radiation" and not a "ectoplasm" (Pegasus type of "Ghostbusters") or a "slime psicomagnotérico" (Ghostbusters II) and perhaps they? what frequency, wavelength and intensity is that blessed "unknown radiation? what takes place in the electromagnetic spectrum? Or is it that sits on the spectrum ... Spooky ghosts?. All the foolishness of radiation "unknown" (I'm starting to listen to the tune of the series "Twilight Zone", kids) to test the supposed mystery of the Shroud trick reminds me of the pseudo-ufo-crazy trying to explain the Of course pseudo-mystery of UFOs with the equally mysterious and for-abnormal pseudoscientific theory that UFOs are teleplasty and ideoplastias (networked the terminachos macaneros) issued by paragnostas equipped with psychokinetic powers ... (re-sic). In other words, to defend a club (ufology) resort to another baton (parapsychology), in the same way that sindonólogos to defend the holy wool fetish pseudoscience STURP sindonologa of appeals to the club of the unknown para-abnormal radiation. Truly sublime.

EJ3: "In 1988, according to some authors the journal Science report something funny: for example, thanks to radiocarbon dating, some snails" live "subject to this measure have yielded an age of 26,000 years. On another occasion had set the age of a freshly killed seals in 1,300 years. More examples, the journal Radiocarbon warned of the dangers of this form of dating, and provided another plausible example, a mammoth that had existed 26,000 years ago had a dating from 5,600 years. And what to think even the incident experienced by the laboratory director of Zurich-one, one of those charged with studying the Shroud, when referring a tablecloth of her mother to carbon-14 found with astonishment that yielded a four centuries old. "Review: Al Apparently this moron does not know that carbon 14 dating should only be applied to inert things, not snails living or freshly dead seals. even the logic of that whistleblowers should say that the meter does not work, because it does not measure ... the weight of something (sic). With respect to the mammoth how he knew that had 26,000 years? not be using the same method of carbon-14 made from different laboratories to eliminate possible margins Error?: precisely why the analysis of the Turin cloth was made in 3 laboratories, not just one, because if one is made mistakes can occur (the science is not perfect, nor that humans do) the which are reduced when the analysis is performed in more laboratories where there is the possibility of contrasting resultados.Lo likely that these errors are due to be outlined that this principle failed to replication of measurements and results by different researchers, which is basic sciences. That's it. The rest is to carry water to the mill of dementia of fanaticones STURP Catholics.

Iinfection After Pedicure?

Shroud language? All comes down to sign?

According to postmodernists, who claim Saussure disciples: a) it comes down to lenguaje.b) the language is good for comunicarse.c) all comes down to signos.d) abstract concepts are signs. But what is the rationale to defend such nonsense? As they say based on the ideas of the famous linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, author of the classic "Course in General Linguistics." Well, let's take a look at the "Cours de Saussure to see if it's true that the postmodern pontificate:

a) With respect to all comes down to language, Saussure tells us that language should identify 2 factors: language (langue) and speech (parole) and to define the object of linguistics: "you have to get from the first time in the field of language and take it as a standard of all other manifestations of language. "Regarding the language, a different system of signs that correspond to different ideas, Saussure tells us (on pg. 144): "But this definition still leaves its tongue hanging out of their social reality, and makes it an unreal thing, since they cover more than one aspect of reality, the individual aspect, we need a speaker for mass there is a language ... at no time was there the language of social fact. "In other words, Saussure tells us that language, or its essential part is the language (understanding that language should not be confused with the language because it is part of that) constitute the whole of reality (omnitudo realitatis), but presupposes that the language "speaking mass" or partnership (not limited to langue), and this in turn presupposes the external nature (which also reduces to the language or a system of signs). And with regard to language on page tells us. 50: "The language has a single side and social side, and you can not conceive of one without the other." Later Saussure tells us that the language also needs the historical event or time: "But in these circumstances, the language is viable, non-living, we have not taken into account rather than social reality, not historical fact. " The same is said about the language on pg. 50: "language requires both a established and evolving; at all times is a current institution and a product of the past. "That is language, as sovereign as the postmodern irrationalism, presupposes the social and historical reality time (since the language and the language are a historic product). And, last but not least, Saussure says that language also depends on the brain: association ratified by the collective consensus, and which together constitute the language are realities that have their seat in the brain "(p. 59 .) Saussure also tells us that what is designated a "foreign language" is important in the tongue and cites historical facts (such as the Roman conquest), the domestic politics, institutions, customs, etc. as important facts for the language (pp. 67-68). Then it is true that language, and essential part of language, are "the whole of reality" because they presuppose other realities are not confined to the langue.

b) With respect to foreign language dogma that does not serve to communicate anything, Saussure says, "language is a set of linguistic habits which allow an individual to understand and be understood, and if it be understood is" communicating " , then it is false absurdity of the postmodern articulates fidei.

c) The sign language is a "combination of concept and sound-image" (p. 129) or union of meaning (semantic content) and significant (auditory or sensory image representation), and no doubt that the signs are part of the language, but elements of the circuit of words between 2 subjects such as brains, sound waves speech organs, ears, etc. (P. 54-55) are linguistic signs nor non-linguistic signs. either society or the history are semiotic signs or objects, then it is false postmodern nonsense that is not based on the ideas of positivist Saussure.

d) Saussure tells us (in the page. 54) that concepts are "facts of consciousness" and on pp. 128-129 states that the linguistic sign is a 2-sided psychological entity: an abstract concept and sound-image is sensory and "material" as opposed to the concept or meaning, then we can not say that the concept is a sign, since the latter is a unit that the concept fails cover completely, as the meaning or concept is only part of the sign, and the other part is the signifier and "these two elements are intimately linked and that call each other" (pág.129). And finally I will quote Saussure to show how absurd it is to argue that the concepts are signs in themselves (excluding the signifier), "The linguistic entity exists only thanks to the significant association and meaning, if not retained just one of those elements, vanishes, instead of a concrete object before us only an abstraction. At all times in danger of not more than grabbing a part of the body believed to cover the entirety "(p. 178).

Source Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure, Editorial Losada, SA Buenos Aires, 1945 (378 pags).

Can A Usb Dongle Connect To Ps3 For Internet

Was Sartre a pious believer or an atheist?

scholars I apologize for asking such a question, as anyone who has read Sartre, and not merely to read the covers of books as some existentialists retrograde and reactionary, he knows exactly what the answer is correct, but let it be the same Sartre who tell us: In his book titled defense of existentialism Sartre: "Existentialism is a Humanism" writes: "What complicates things is that there are two kinds of existentialists: the first, who are Christians, including which I would place Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, of the Catholic faith, and on the other hand, the atheistic existentialists, among whom we must place Heidegger, as well as the French existentialists and myself. "also says:" Existentialism I represent an atheist is more consistent. declares that if God does not exist, so Menosuno being in which existence precedes essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man or as Heidegger says, human reality. What is here that existence precedes essence? Means that the man begins to exist, is, arises in the world, and then defined. The man as the existentialist conceives him, if not identity, is because it starts with being nothing. It will only be later, and will talcomo is made. So there is no human nature because there is no God to conceive it. "And later adds:" And when we talk about homelessness, Heidegger face expression, we mean only that God does not exist, and that this must be removed the final consequences ". and if some ignorant existentialist and stubborn in doubt, Sartre says in that book, "Dostoyevsky wrote:" If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. "This is the starting point of existentialism. In fact, everything is permissible if God does not exist and therefore The man is deserted, because there is no or yes or out of it a chance to hold on. " Also in Sartre's literary works are references to atheism, as evidenced by Sartre's book "The Devil and God": "Goetz: I have been wondering during this time, every moment, who I was, in front of the eyes of God .. . At this point I know the answer: God does not see me, I do not listen, I do not know ... Do you see this gap on our heads Well that's God ... See that hole in the ground? Is God. God is the solitude of men ... I, I just decided to do evil, then I have only decided to do good ... I accuse me today, I can only absolve. Yo, man ... If God exists, man is nothing. If there is a man ... "I think these quotes are enough to prove the atheism of Sartre and refute those memos and confused" Sartre believers "(sic), expressed as self-contradictory and hollow as materialistic idealism" or "State Anarchist showing that these insane irrational need someone to "opens" to stop being ridiculous, that they look embarrassed.

Brazillian Wax Charleston Sc

Was Aristotle a thinker "Christian"?

I know that many think they qualify (or disqualify, according to taste) to the Greek Aristotle's "Christian" is a true boutade, and that the whole question may seem a joke or a provocation or a an idle nonsense that does not know escribir.Pero is not so, because there are many priests who, not content with having a saint for each day of the year, wanted to Christianize, "canonized" or sprinkling holy water Macedonian aristotelian for services rendered (without consent, of course) to the Catholic doctrine of Holy Tomás.Ahora hands well, maintaining that Aristotle was a Christian is wrong, because: 1-
Aristotle lived in the fourth century BC (384-322 BC) and therefore it was impossible to know the doctrine of Christ and Christianity if not met, as would truism, it was impossible for him to become.
2-Catholics say that, as Aristotle believed in God, and that fact alone was a Christian, but that is wrong and believe in God quetambién Muslims and Jews but not for that we say they are Christians, right?. Deists also as Lessing and Voltaire believed in God, but they did not believe in any institutional religion. The same, mutatis mutandis, the wicked can say that Aristotle was accused of impiety to the gods in their época.Por other hand, to qualify as a Christian is not enough to believe in God must also believe that Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles, the immortality of the soul, the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, etc.. plus all those beliefs and dogmas were unknown to Aristotle, because he lived in a time before Christianity, more so then qualify to aristotelian a Christian is a-historical nonsense.
3-The God of Aristotle only resembles the Christian God who is infinite, but in all other respects it differs from it because: a) For Christians, God created the world and is omniscient, in contrast to Aristotle, the motor still not only created the world, but neither conoce.b) For Christians, God knows and loves God to men, whereas for Aristotle does not know God loves anyone but himself is known and thought mismo.c thought itself) For Christians God is relegated, linked to the men that made possible the religion (of religare), whereas for Aristotle God is not associated with anyone that there was an infinite distance between God and humanity. Then the Aristotelian God not only has nothing to do with religion, but destroys it to make way for a Deism that is only the prelude of atheism.

How Long Ice After Laparoscopy

Myths about the historical existence of Christ

Myth 1: The New Testament is an infallible witness to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Review: In fact the NT has a lot of contradictions, impossibilities and fallacies that are unlikely to present evidence "irrefutable" of the alleged existence of Jesus. Here are a few examples of contradictions in the NT, "in the Gospel of Luke says Jesus was born 9 years before the death of Herod, in contrast to the Gospel of Matthew says he was born only 2 years before the death of that KING in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew says that Joseph's father Jacob, Luke tells us that change was Heli.Además both contradict each other in all names of ancestors of Jesus other than the names of David and Joseph, and contradicted in the number of generations as a gospel while 56 generations are counted in other are only 42, etc.

Myth 2: In the book "Testimonium Flavianum" the renowned Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus appears where it is recognized that it was the Christ, then this book is a solid historical evidence for the existence of Christ.

Review: Most scholars believe that little passage is only an interpolation made by a Christian scribe (possibly by Eusebius, Father of the Church) was taken long after the appearance Josephus' book, then that "testimony" lacks valor.Muy suspect that this fragment is falsely attributed to Josephus, since it appears as Josephus ... Christian!, it is known that he was always Pharisee and never renounced his sect (which was harshly criticized by Jesus in the NT). But if we assume, without historical basis, the alleged "conversion" of Josephus to Christianity, how is it possible that he dedicates his book just a few lines, to make matters worse, they have no relation to the rest of the text? Why not devoted an entire book to your new messiah if both believed in him?.

Myth 3: The early persecution of Christians by Nero and other Roman emperors of the century, show that the doctrine of Jesus was widely known soon after his death.

Review: Although books and movies that show us a Nero persecutor of Christians, there is no historical evidence has been rigorously pursued by a Christian ... 180 DC (second century). The first reference to the alleged persecution of Christians by Nero was freshly made in 170 AD by the Bishop of Sardis and never antes.Por other hand, it is curious that in 64 AD, Nero's time, many Christians were slaughtered in just Rome 30 years after the death of Jesus in an age where communications between different geographical areas were not characterized precisely by being quick and speedy.

Myth 4: References to the Christians by the heathen Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

Review: First, these historians say nothing testable and new about the character Jesus, only limited mention the Christian movement and spread, uncritically, the same rumor that Christians shouted on ajusticiamento of Second Cristo.En The experts tell us that the passage of Pliny the younger was a further distortion of a quote about the Essenes, not Christians, and the passage of Tacitus only ... was known in the fifteenth century, that is, 1500 years after it was supposedly written.

Myth 5: The holy places of Christianity, the relics and the simple fact that there are icons that represent the body of Jesus are material evidence of their existence.

Review: With respect to sacred places, experts tell us that these were considered as such (and called as they appear in the NT) only from ... IV.Con century to the relics, it is known that 90 % of them are fakes and the rest should be the reasonable suspicion of forgery. For example, the number of chips supposed relics of the cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified is so great that could be dozens of crosses and even a wooden ship ... (sic). And finally, regarding the alleged physical representation "reliable" of Jesus to the same Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that there is no reliable picture Jesus ... unless, of course, that we create these representations of Jesus "Aryan" blond hair and blue eyes of some churches (with a whiff of anti-Semitism) that do not correspond much to the Jewish character of Middle Eastern or Semitic that is attributed to Jesus in the NT.

Diptyque Perfume Melbourne

Myths

Myth 1: All human life is a person. the embryo is human life. then the embryo is a person.

Review: The major premise of the argument is wrong, because while a person is human life does not imply that the reciprocal is cierta.por example, heart or kidney to someone is human life, but are not "persons" nor is the embryo, since although this is a living organism is not a personal being, as to be a person is necessary but not sufficient, to have neural connections in the brain that allow the feeling, thinking, etc., but the embryo does not develop synapses before 29 weeks, ergo not a person with a conscience. On the other hand, the embryo or fetus are not people even when they have synaptic connections, as for being a person is necessary to be integrated into a civilization that teach values \u200b\u200bthat is not the case of the unborn, and neither is the case of humans living in primitive tribes of Africa who, despite having mental functions are not "people" do not live in a civilization that has developed writing and the rule of law.

Myth 2: The embryo is a person, because he has an immortal soul given by God, then an abortion is a crime.

Review: The Myth of the soul and was refuted by Hume, Kant, the materialists and the neo-positivists who demonstrated long ago that the soul rational arguments are nothing but mere sophistry to hide a vulgar pious wish of immortality ("hunger immortality "that spoke Unamuno). The soul is a empty concept that long ago was expelled from scientific psychology and psychobiology that part of the fertile hypothesis of identity between mental phenomena and brain processes that make it unnecessary metaphysical myth of the soul which is unscientific because it is untraceable, unverifiable and to contradict the principle of conservation of energía.Por The argument that the embryo is a person to have a soul breathed by God is a fallacy of false premise.

Myth 3: The embryo is a person not born to be the embryo stage simply by passing the person not to be embryo ceases to be such a person.

Review: To say that the embryo is a single stage of development of a person who exists in a state of embryo is a fallacy of begging the question, because it assumes as true what is at issue, namely whether or not the embryo is a person who has rights such. To say that the embryo is a person without even precisely define it is very dishonest person, especially when it appeals to metaphysical entities like the soul or God are unverifiable and contradictory and therefore explain nothing in relation to the alleged "personality" of the unborn child.Also this argument makes a confusion of concepts and to identify, incorrectly, and free, being in power to be in act, as it is intended that because an embryo or fetus can develop into the people, then we are "people" today, but that argument is as absurd as claiming that because an egg in power (in a possible future) is a chicken, then the egg in this it is a hen (sic), but this nonsense does not explain why the freírme the egg does not know a chicken, let alone explain why the egg does not cost as much as chicken face, or cackling like this ;-). It is worth saying that such sophistry is based on a metaphysical teleological vision which states that the future of the hand of divine providence, determines the past through the present (re-sic) in the same way that personality determines their child's future present and past fetus embryo, but this contradicts divine teleology to causality that is up to the events of the past (not future planning and divine foreknowledge) that determine future events through the events of this, then teleology contradicting the causality is one way contradicting the principle of sufficient reason and, therefore, is irracional.De the same way that it is absurd to suggest that recently planted an acorn is now a robust oak, oak because his future ("existing in limbo?) determines this acorn, but Acorn is destroyed by a flood, fire etc. then never be an oak acorn and an oak if it was never impossible that something that was never determined if fue.Al past as if a fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion was never a person and if ever was a person it is impossible what does not exist in the future determine the existing embryo was in the past before the abortion.

Myth 4: Since science can not accurately determine exactly when the embryo becomes a person, the simplest hypothesis is to argue that the embryo is a person to be the semantic distinction between pure fruit free of prejudice of abortion.

Review: A myth that we can resist the arguments the criticism of myth 1, but this argument rests on a fallacy known as the fallacy of the continuum or continuity: the fallacy that states that because we can not establish the precise boundaries between the extreme terms of a continuum, then there difference between the extremes. Translated into our theme, as we can not determine the precise boundary between the most extreme person embryo and embryonic development process, then there is no such distinction between ends and both denote the same, ie, are "people", but that is as absurd as saying we do not know the precise day and time in which an adult becomes an old, then there is no such distinction and the adult is already a old (and hopefully not for my good ;-)).

Myth 5: Abortion trauma a child always a woman.

Review: There is no doubt that "many" women to abortion have a sense of guilt, but it allows to take out the fallacy of induction false that "all" the group of women who have abortions go through a trauma, right? . On the other hand, this myth does not say anything about the women who do have a trauma by having an unwanted child (the result of rape, for example), which is underestimated by saying that in life there are happy and some sad moments, but not going to have an abortion just to avoid a major upset, but this flimsy "argument" you can go around saying we must not abort, in serious cases such as rape, only to avoid a penalty because, after all, in life there are happy moments and other painful right?.

Myth 6: The abortion is always a crime "unfair" contrary to "natural law", then abortion is a crime.

Review: To say that abortion is "always" a crime is absurd, because if a country abortion is regulated by law, ergo abortion is not a crime because the crime is a violation of the laws of the right positive of a nation and if the right of a nation allows abortion, ergo not a crime to practice (within limits imposed by the applicability legal corpus that political society, that is). And if champions of fetal life tell us it is "unfair" to abortion but allows the jurisprudence of a country should respond to the word "justice" was defined by Gayo jurist as "giving each his own" and that "giving to every one who" is set by the previous positive order (not the fictional order of God the Father or the alleged extraterrestrial Ganymede), ergo what the law prescribe fair, because it fits right (and no justice outside of positive law) that does not mean that that right can be inspired by moral or ethical virtues (which may be in opposition to other religious or moral rules). For Finally to say that abortion is wrong because it goes against "natural law" is confusing and dark, and that should be clear that the sense of the term "natural law": 1) if by natural law refers to the natural law of St. Thomas Theological Aquinas, according to what would a supposed natural laws emanating from God "unmoved mover" who must obey, I should say that: a) the 5-way of St. Thomas to prove the existence of God and were refuted by Hume, Kant, Russell and Good (among others) and therefore no rational basis to conclude the existence of God and if there is evidence that satisfies God, the less the need to prove the alleged existence of natural laws that emanate from such entelequia.b) Assuming, hypothetically, that there was a God (that there) that "God" would not necessarily be identical to the God of Catholicism may be the architect of the Masonic God or the God of the deists watchmaker for whom God is not concerned with the affairs of men. It could also be the nature of Spinoza God does not love what men. It is Catholics who would have to demonstrate that God exists and God is painted as Catholics and that is Allah, Krishna or Spinoza's Deus sive natura. but since they can not prove the existence of God, unless they can demonstrate their essence "Catholic" and, therefore, not worth the iusnaturalism católico.c) Assuming, hypothetically, that God exists and is the God of the Catholics that would not prove that all "should" obey their laws, as in rigor of descriptive statements in the indicative (God exists and claims to do X) we can not deduce the conclusion trial policy in the imperative (then we should do X), as this is a logical-grammatical error known as the naturalistic fallacy. If a Catholic tells me that the existence of God is a true statement, then his orders are obeyed, I would say that even if it were true (which it is) would not follow orders because such a God, and that while a statement can be classified as true or false does not imply that the rules or mandatory (must do X) supposedly deduced statement are true, that rigor and standards and imperatives are neither true nor false (because they are not listed) are only effective and ineffective in terms of given objectives. If I said that I should obey God because if not the wrath of God will crush me answer that that is no reason or proof that I must obey, what reason would have to obey a God be so angry that no one deserves obedience? why should not challenge it if that is my wish? Is not oppose the heroism of the powerful more beautiful and glorious to obey him as a submissive and contemptible poodle? but as an omnipotent God is so powerless that they can not make a simple atheist obey him? To say that disobedience to God's commandments attacks God is calling into question his omnipotence, because how can someone be affect an infinite power? if you believe that God may be impaired by the disobedience, then God is not omnipotent and if God is omnipotent is not ... as you can see the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is full of dead ends and contradictions that Catholics can not solve; then his divine natural law has no bases.2) if by natural law refer to the laws of organic nature remind them that a descriptive sentence (as set out on laws) can not logically deduce a sentence prescriptive (naturalistic fallacy). but suppose it were true, yet the "natural law" goes against the same anti-abortion, because we could invoke the law of natural selection for embryo abortion in cases of childbirth endangering life the mother who "struggle for survival" against the embryo. We can also rely on natural selection in cases where the births pose a danger to the life of the community who have a true "population explosion" aggravated by economic problems, food shortages, droughts, etc. in this case, more than mothers will be the state who require mothers to abort not to jeopardize the continuity of the nation in the "struggle for existence" Darwinian (as in the People's Republic of China, for example).

Myth 7: Who is in favor of "free choice" is pro-abortion and who remain "neutral" is already an abortionist or an accessory to them.

Review: The argument is inconsistent, since it is possible that someone is pro-choice and consciously choose the pro-life ... Or perhaps the anti-abortion is not a "free choice" of the subject?. The argument that who is not anti-abortion stands for is only the fallacy of bifurcation, and to pretend that there is only 2 alternatives on abortion (pro and con) when in fact many people do not feel challenged by the question, either because they do not care, are too busy working or belong to cultures that do not pose these tópicos.Por other side is dogmatic sees all "black and white" unconditionally pro-abortion or against abortion without conditions "and forget that there are flats and degrees, as some are against abortion except in cases such as rape or danger death of the mother where they are willing to allow it. Others are in favor of allowing abortion, but only before 3 months and are opposed to abort after that period (even if the mother is at risk or no risk of birth defects). As shown "there is everything in the vineyard of the Lord" and is not considered abortions honest someone who is neutral as well as, in another context, not a terrorist who remains neutral to the divine cross Bushies "are with us or with terrorism "because, after all, not everyone has a habit of bombing or evangelize the" Moors "or minus the foul habit of bawling" God Save the USA "in a Mormon temple o. .. on the deck of an aircraft carrier of the Unitas Yankee, I say ;-).

Lasik Ontario Driver Licence

antiabortion Catholic fundamentalist rhetorical tricks

Catholic fundamentalist rhetorical tricks

Here are some tricks sophistical The altar boys slyly cato-Tradisa wield against their opponents for the greater glory of his sect:

trick 1: "Atheists are all disciples of the few communist murderers Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. viciously pursued the Holy Mother Church, which is defended only by the light of reason and faith in our Lord against the inhuman violence of hours atheistic Marxist blah, blah, blah. "
Review: Here we see that these charlatans botched trick is to identify chupacirios atheism with communism based on the combination of the fallacy of hasty generalization: "Some atheists are communists, then all are" (also " was anti-socialist communist atheist F. Nietzsche? Was also an atheist communist existentialist Heidegger?) With the fallacy of incorrect conversion of universal judgments, "the Communists are atheists, then atheists are communists", which is as absurd as arguing that because all the pears are fruits, then all the fruit is ... pears (sic). On the other hand, reduce the massacres of Stalin and other leaders of the Marxism to a simple anti-religious persecution is tantamount to falsifying history since Stalin in his purges also settled a number ... considerable militant communists and atheists (such as Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.) that he believed constituted a threat to their poder.Tampoco the extermination of the kulaks or peasant proprietors and settlement of 30,000 Red Army officers were due to "anti-religious motives, but rather a political-economic reasons (in case of kulaks) and a trap set by Stalin Canaris, Chief Hitler's Nazi espionage (in the case of communist officials killed).

tricks 2: "Holy Mother Church has never harmed anyone, but it is a poor victim of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by atheists, Marxists, Freemasons, the Mafia, the UN, journalists and other scourges to the world dechristianize and destroy the church and true believers larynx, laran. "
Review: Yes, yeah, sure. The iglesuca chaotic, like the far right delusion that identify with this sectilla, loves always presented as the victim misunderstood this wicked and sinful modern world (I think that also was the victim when the average age was the 3rd part land and was a power he undertook crusades to exterminate their enemies). Poor thing is always the victim of the dreaded Illuminati conspiracies (which was discontinued in 1786), Marxism (despite the collapse of the socialist bloc in the 89), Masons (most of whom are theists and use Bible in their "taken"), the Mafia (most of which are devout Catholics and even have shrines in their houses), etc, etc. It remains only for the scribes of delirium alcoholism Conspiranoids cato-lic will invent grotesque enemies (say, the aliens from Ganymede) for the church feel more "victim" of what we pretend to es.Hablando seriously, that victimhood hypocritical of the Church overreacted, that does not fit or with a shoehorn, is a fallacy of "begging for mercy" (ad misericordiam) which only serves to distract attention from wealthy and powerful reality of a Church which has more than 1,100 million fan in the world and aims to bi-millenary catolizar the rest of the world he had left and assimilate or destroy (by military means) to any religion or sect that he crossed the road.

Tufillo 3: "The Inquisition did not kill a fly. In the conquest of America, the church did not kill anyone, that is just the black legend who invented the Protestant heretics to divert attention from their killings of Indians. The blame for triggering the English Civil War are comunachos of Stalin's henchmen and the great Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, as evidenced by our historians with doctorates and a string of titles that are worth more than the writers unknown to you dating me patatin, potato " .
Review: The old mantra of "Black legend" of the great-grandmother is the catchall where iglesilla gets all his crimes and shame: The Inquisition did not kill the condemned person, but they were the "judges" who were convicted and sentenced to death (not Hitler , Himmler and other Nazi leaders hands stained with blood, but it would be foolish to suppose that had nothing to do with the Holocaust was planned and directed by them). The Catholic sect had nothing to do with the massacres of Indians in the process evangelism, although the same devout Catholic priest Las Casas, including Catholic priests, was eyewitness to many murders of native and demonstrate many massacres "evangelistic" memorias.Por in their course, the English Civil War was caused by the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy-communist though who rebelled against the republic, who won legitimately at the polls, was Franco ... nothing suspicious communist Of course. But we know that the Communists are the only ones guilty of civil war (renamed with holy water by the Hispanic bishops as "crossed by the Christian West") by the historical work of distinguished merit historian Pio Moa, although we have so "Pius" writer is not a professional historian and his books are not history but rather pure revisionist propaganda for the glory of the PP and the Holy See.

Tu-ru-ru-ru 4: "all atheists are relativists and do not believe there is truth and values, so have a libertine life that is fucking all day, get drunk and lining of joints and lines of coke to bursting tarantantán ".
Review: The repetitive homily of the Holy Father ... Blessed cream (for the Hitler Youth) XVI that atheists are relativists is vague and ambiguous, because there is "no" relativism, but many: ethical relativism, aesthetic relativism, epistemic relativism, etc.así that the accusation is inaccurate and therefore worthless. Now, if ethical relativism regards the charge would be an inductive fallacy, and that while we can not rule out ethical relativist atheists, it is nonetheless true that this does not mean that all atheists universe is relativistic, relativistic and non-Marxist atheists who defend objective ethics (based on the objective interests of the proletariat), it disciples atheists G. Well are relativistic, no less an atheist and bungerianos Mario Bunge, etc.Therefore certainly no shortage of Catholics after Mass are "partying" to close the bars and brothels where they do everything that they attributed to atheists but no matter all the Ambrosian Church cares only that these are properly baptized droves to increase their power and privileges based on population density, and sometimes go to church, after all they could sin, to absolve their peccadilloes them in confession is not as comfortable in the world to be Catholic? to reason there are so many who profess the Catholic ... cynicism, so anyone.

Company Anniversary Invitation Sample

10 things I do when not blogging *

(*: And I realized I do not know if this VERBOID conjugates as blogging, blogging or what. I liked that)

1. I teach
2.
watching TV 3. Leo
4. I talk
5.
sleep 6. I'll walk
7. Buy books (not embedded in read: buy many books then do not read)
8. I take pictures (some end up in my fotolog, some not)
9. As
10. Live

(does that explain where walking this blog? Hehe)

Pokemon Ruby Para O Mobile

Criticism of criticism Letichevsky Mario Bunge

The Popperian SSL in his article "The absolute antagonisms difficult to understand," published in the magazine Catoblepas (No. 16), a critique of the Bunge book "Crisis and reconstruction of the philosophy that begins with criticism of the criticism made by Bunge to the supposed autonomy of Popper's World 3 course, of which the third Bunge said «(...) World War did not leave a crumb of the 'objective mind' of Dilthey or equally imaginary 'world 3' of Popper.. " SSL said that Popper anticipated criticism when he wrote: "shall consider two thought experiments: Experiment 1: All machines and tools have been destroyed, along with all our subjective learning, including the subjective knowledge of machines, tools, and how to use. However, libraries survive and our ability to learn in them. It is clear that, after many hardships, our world can jump-start again. Experiment 2: As above, have been destroyed machinery and tools, along with our subjective learning including our subjective knowledge of machines, tools and how to use them. But this time, were also destroyed all the libraries, so our ability to learn from books becomes useless. If we reflect on these two experiments, may look a little more clearly the reality, significance and degree of autonomy of the third world (and their effects on the second and first.) This is because, in the second case, our civilization would not emerge until after many millennia. ". But if we look at Popper's appointment see that SSL is wrong, as a third world war would not be nuclear in nature or libraries nor human brains "subjective learning" about things, then there would be no ideas or theories right or wrong (world 3) without brains that design and, therefore, Bunge counterexample disproves the supposed autonomy of the world 3.SSL tells us that the ideas "... are real as a human creation (as are real works of nests and other animals) and especially because it can indirectly act on the matter", but below are grossly inconsistent writing about social classes: "But the 'social classes' are not concepts and entities. The concepts can be quite useful, but are mental constructs: they have no existence real "good" ones left, concepts or ideas are real or not?. If we define the real as the material is clear that the ideas are not real to not be material and its "existence" is merely contextual, sham and pretense. For example, electrons exist in the context of material reality, but the "ghosts" exist in the context of mythology, not reality, but that does not prevent some children and ignorant this "idea" has infused a real fear, the result of brain processes, materials, concepts do not exist or "ghostly" do not even have a reference critical real.SSL Bunge the following statement: "A few skeptics have doubted the power of reason to establish mathematical formulas beyond the shadow of a doubt. The reason is that mathematics is not given but we built it and is, therefore, entirely under human control. "Writing," Popper says expressly (ref. 2, pp. 249) that the sequence numbers is a human creation, but that these have properties (to be even or odd, prime, when reaching the Goldbach conjecture and Euclid's theorem according to which there is no greatest prime, & c.) than anyone had imagined and had to discover. The math is not at all "totally under human control" (see ref. 6) (despite having been created by man) and this is what Popper calls "the relative autonomy of world 3 '." Properties of numbers are not objective properties similar to that found in material things but inventions that are ours: we stipulate that the number divisible by 2 is even, but we could have called it another way (or pair have called a number divisible by another number), or simply not have created the even-odd distinction. With respect to the theorem that there is no greatest prime, it was deduced from axioms and postulates arbitrarily "demonstration", as any deductive proof is entirely empty, since deductive proofs only demonstrate what is already assumed in its axioms or assumptions, then the "discovery" math is not analogous to the factual findings of science which empirical propositions are tautological and mathematics and logic. By the way, could hardly have come to the theorem of yore without having previously invented the concept as arbitrary prime divisible by 1 and itself mismo.SSL we repeated the mantra that induction Popper has no logical basis and can not demonstrate hypotheses for positive cases, only disprove a negative event and says: "Everyday experience, repeated for thousands of years, shows that the sun rises every day. By induction, we can ensure that will come within a thousand or ten million years. However, it is not. We know that in a very long time the sun is extinguished and disappears life on earth. " But here SSL commits a fallacy of logical inconsistency, since according to him the induction is not used in the sciences, but SSL "refutes" the induction can be expressed: "So far the sun has appeared on the horizon, then the sun always appear on the horizon "with the induction ... (sic):" All the stars are extinguished yet, so all the stars in the universe (including our sun) become extinct. " Is not that the inductions were left with no basis? So since you do rationale induction on stellar extinction?. While that rationale has no induction does not imply that science is not used as justification in the context of what is important is the induction of the facts to theory. The inductive conclusion need not be proven, because it is a course and all you have to ask is proof that a good course and nothing else. After all, also the axioms of geometry and the principles of logic have no logical basis (they are untestable), but that does not not used in critical ciencias.SSL also examples existential hypothesis Bunge argues: "Even so, empirical confirmation can be conclusive in the case of existential assumptions, such as' there are atoms', 'no genes" "There are oligopolies" and "no political democracies." In such cases, a single positive example is sufficient to confirm the hypothesis "writing," the examples given by Bunge, are not existential hypothesis. For Epicurus, the atomic theory was an unprovable hypothesis. For Dalton, was an indirect deduction, from chemical phenomena, and was a theory instrumental. There are already plenty of evidence, but this is another "atom" (as well considering it was called indivisible, the last particle). The same happened with the genes Mendel never "found" a gene to confirm the hypothesis of its existence but its existence inferred indirectly. And the existence of political democracy depends on a prior definition (not easy). For many, the U.S. is a political democracy. For others it is a plutocracy, and elections are purely formal. Nobody doubts that "there is terrorism," but has not yet been able to define properly. " It is irrelevant what Epicurus and Dalton 'opinions on atoms, as we now know that exist objectively and are not indivisible. With respect to genes, the method of indirect evidence that Mendel used to discover the genes does not commit to anything the objective existence of genes. After all, detectives also use that method of indirect evidence to find the criminals, and if they find a criminal with a method that no one would deny that "there is a guy who murdered-so" only because no one was directly a guy pull the trigger to blow her brains out-so, right?. That the definition of democracy is not easy does not follow that there is democracy and that democracy is not perfect or not set rousseauneano an ideal mold does not follow that no democracy is a kind of residual (Schumpeter), but the empirical democracy after all.

Paco