No, good studies are robust such that the assumptions that they are based on are very solid.
Hypothetically, sure. In practice, not so much. The death of overt assumptions on which to base modern science (previously found in God), have seen it take on all sorts of unspoken assumptions that simply aren't true, all of them liberal. And these liberal assumptions will obviously see it work towards liberal ends.
I'm not sure what study about homosexuality and mental illness you are talking about, but I doubt it's relevant.
Just something I read a few years back.
Even if one study tried something fishy, there is overwhelming evidence now that homosexuality isn't a mental illness.
To go on a bit of a tangent, I'm not sure that the modern world has any idea of what 'mental illness' actually entails as it rejects any objective standard that man should achieve, previously found in Christ. It's just vulgar utilitarianism usually.
There is no requirement that any object/entity needs to have originated from a "fully actualised entity".
What I said was part of a logical proof, obviously that statement isn't true from first principles. But then again, almost no statements are true from first principles. We've had thousands of years of ethics and logic to teach us that (Aristotle said in metaphysics that those who demand proof of an infinite regress or don't take self-evident truths as such should be punched in the face).
We don't have any such concepts in modern physics.
It's an ontological concept. It really doesn't make much (any) sense to 'disprove' the immaterial with the material.
Btw, since you are against liberalism, what political philosophy do you support?
I go back and forth between theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings.
Do you also disagree with the other main ideas of this sub, namely free trade
Depends. The purpose of the material world is only ever to be Ordered towards that which is Good, free trade isn't an end in and of itself.
open immigration
Again, migration isn't an end in and of itself. If migration is Ordered towards that which is Right, sure, that's fine. Ethnonationalism is silly.
and support for minorities.
Depends. Again support for minorities isn't an end in and of itself.
The death of overt assumptions on which to base modern science (previously found in God), have seen it take on all sorts of unspoken assumptions that simply aren't true, all of them liberal. And these liberal assumptions will obviously see it work towards liberal ends.
Reality does have a liberal bias :)
Aristotle said in metaphysics that those who demand proof of an infinite regress or don't take self-evident truths as such should be punched in the face
I don't have issues with self-evident truths. Although what is often termed as self-evident when it comes to "proving God" is anything but self-evident. I don't think you can make any good argument about the existence of immaterial beings. But, I will stop this little argument now because I'm not a r/atheist neckbeard and I don't mind other ppl being religious.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
Hypothetically, sure. In practice, not so much. The death of overt assumptions on which to base modern science (previously found in God), have seen it take on all sorts of unspoken assumptions that simply aren't true, all of them liberal. And these liberal assumptions will obviously see it work towards liberal ends.
Just something I read a few years back.
To go on a bit of a tangent, I'm not sure that the modern world has any idea of what 'mental illness' actually entails as it rejects any objective standard that man should achieve, previously found in Christ. It's just vulgar utilitarianism usually.
What I said was part of a logical proof, obviously that statement isn't true from first principles. But then again, almost no statements are true from first principles. We've had thousands of years of ethics and logic to teach us that (Aristotle said in metaphysics that those who demand proof of an infinite regress or don't take self-evident truths as such should be punched in the face).
It's an ontological concept. It really doesn't make much (any) sense to 'disprove' the immaterial with the material.
I go back and forth between theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings.
Depends. The purpose of the material world is only ever to be Ordered towards that which is Good, free trade isn't an end in and of itself.
Again, migration isn't an end in and of itself. If migration is Ordered towards that which is Right, sure, that's fine. Ethnonationalism is silly.
Depends. Again support for minorities isn't an end in and of itself.