Good and Bad-What is the difference?

I use good and bad as an example because “eccentric “ mainstream science assumes that good and bad are the same and this is an absolute ...ASSUMES!...therefore.

Bad = Bad
Bad = Good
Good = Bad
Good =Good

It’s interesting that when you do all the 4 off logic output scenarios that Bad =Bad and Good = Good comes out of it.

As “eccentric” mainstream science cannot confirm their assumption scientifically it is reasonable to assume that Good and Bad are not the same even though this assumption has not been confirmed scientifically either.

This is SOUND science.

Science will confirm this.....Philosophy certainly does....all sciences are interconnected.

What is the term we are going to use to refer to the intellectual practice that is based on experiment and measurement? Clearly you are using the term "science" for something that isn't that.

So what term should we use?

Remember “Eccentric” mainstream science has had the random thought that good and bad are the same and this is an absolute without proving it scientifically....

I am just asking for you to define a simple term. You are throwing around a bunch of new terms...

The field of study that is based on experiment and that features theories that are objectively testable... what are we going to call this field.

Is that "mainstream science"? Is that "eccentric" science?

Just give me the term you want to use.

Well we could call it “reasonable” or “logical” science...

What is totally clear is that what is termed “authentic” science i.e. most mainstream science ....is now “eccentric” until terminologies get changed.

Ok so do I understand correctly.

You want to use the term "reasonable science" to refer to the field of study (which I call real science) where theories are developed by experiment and facts need be objectively testable.

I am OK with that term.

“…most modern day science IS the “eccentric” but is UNAWARE of this”
No bad a comment. Just is it. The tragedy is that “prisoner of consciousness” who is not capable to view science from a “deeper level” / “higher perspective” (the FULCRUM) try to “define science”, just like “gangster” does.
…………………………………….
“Gangster’s logic”:
Did anyone observe that the core of a black hole is a “singularity”? Or did anyone send a spaceship to verify this point? If not, how can they assure that the core of a black hole is a “singularity”?
Can this example count as a case of “Gangster’s logic”?

I can answer this question for you. I think you are being childish and stubborn rather than truly seeking an answer to this question..

If you want a serious scientific answer (rather than an anti science shouting match) just ask.

A crazy dog can bite a man dead, while a man can’t bite a crazy dog dead.
Piggy never understands why those guys who look down upon or unhappy with the academic achievement in a2k must persist on PRESENCE in this site. For what purpose?

“Gangster’s logic” 2:
Did anyone observe ONE electron passed through TWO slits?
“When people observe, the electron becomes certain and just pass through only ONE slit…”
Isn’t it just a descent excuse?

(Experiment is disturbed by theory.)

I understand...

You want to reject knowledge, rather than taking the time to understand how it works. This is somthing from first year Physics in a University course.

A redundant dog always try to denigrate piggy “anti science” in a2k, it is just a small case. The First Order even denigrated piggy owed their mothers very much in PHF. haha

“Gangster’s logic”3:
Did anyone carry out an experiment and observe that the contraction of space is only in the direction of movement?

For anyone reading this who isn't anti-science. This is how science works.

1) You start with a hypothesis, in this example we posit that a wave function will describe the behvior of light from the double slit experiment.

2) You set up the experiment, and the mathematical model. Then you calculate what results you would expect should your model be correct. You also calculate what results would disprove your hypothesis (which is an important part of the experiment).

3) Then you run the experiment and verify the results. When you verify the result, and other people sonfirm the results, and no one rejects it then model is accepted as scientific.

4) Then scientists try to explain the result (which they understand because that is their expertise) to laypeople.

5) The Philosopers who don't belive in science and don't have any expertise (since they haven't taken the time to learn) read the scientists explanation.

So scientists continue doing science, and so-called "philsophers" keep rejecting it.

Of course, scientists do try to take the time to explain to these "philosophers" what they are getting wrong, but it generally doesn't work. I don't know who is more foolish in this interaction... the philsophers for being stubbornly ignorant, or the scientists for not just giving up and going on to doing more science.

Scientists (i.e. people with science degrees who accept science as taught in universities) are landing robots on mars and developing vaccines to end global pandemics. The philosophers, when they are not rejecting science, spend their time twiddling their thumbs about whether good is bad or bad is good.

Why piggy must learn what “knowledge” from “prisoner of consciousness”? What a joke in the 21st century. Piggy learned the PRESENCE – SELF philosophical principle from Jasper 10 and has LEFT behind those so – called what “authentic” / "standard", heading to the new era of science.

In “reasonable” science are you able to confirm that this process has been followed to confirm that good is bad and bad is good?

No ....and yet this claim is peddled as fact in the “eccentric” scientific community.

Why is this when the TRUTH is that it should only be broadcast as a POSSIBILITY to the world and nothing more.

...and mainstream science wants to continue to be taken seriously?

You have not proposed an experent to test this claim. Therefore it is not reasonable science.

In any scientific theory, a scientist can tell you what experental results woud disprove the theory. If you cant do this, then your claims are untestable.

Science is about experiment and measurement and confiemation. Untestable claims arent science.

I have no problem with you saying that your claims represent Truth. Science is a well defined process of experiment and observation... your untestable claims are not Science.

“Gangster’s logic” 4:
Did anyone weigh a neutrino with scale? If not, how can they assure neutrino is massless?

“Gangster’s logic” 5:
Piggy has demonstrated in my threads very explicitly that the so – called “energy – momentum equation” is just a tricky math game. Its essence is actually Einstein’s (dynamic or static) energy – mass equation. Why the so – called what “energy – momentum equation” must be “standard”?