"Sometimes the best views are from a different perspective. 🌟"

No. It goes over yours. But please tell me about science, fag.

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqg7lqk25fl24xd0zh7hr8jgp5smdy2eszjh9nmv7z7w85h6xcs9hqfak8fj nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqaw2wjq3pw536ql6635aq0a5sqxwlvzeguge6tkhk5mdzq4yez97s3q0vf6 nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqc5tlngqj4f9f3lkxnu2swe98pem78ss6xf380ldh3rlrm595zrushgxyvy nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq494rtg3ygq4cqawymgs0q3mcj6hucvu4kmadv03s5ey2sg32df5st2nc9c let me explain to you what he means, we have to get down to the bare foundations.

let's say i am a scientist, but i am one that was born in times before modern science.

i do not have any modern tool to conduct science, nor do i have access to any of the knowledge humanity has accrued so far, we have nothing to work with here, but our own eyes.

what is the proof that Fire and Infection are not in the same Category?

this is obvious to us today, that they are not the same, but how do we find that out using no tools? we have no Germ theory, we have no way of knowing the *Observation* is the key word here.

using Observation with what we have to work with, we can rationalize and conclude that fire and infection are Categorically the same, for Example:

1. Both Latch onto a Living Thing (What Category of "Living thing" is just a different Property, but still in the same Category)

2. Both Spread Farther, by touch or by Proximity

3. Both Destroy the the thing they are Latched onto.

The Speed of the Destruction, and the amount of Heat it emits for example, is simply a Property, which is why they are not the same thing, but they are the same Category.

how do you disprove this?

now me and you, we both know this is bullshit, they are different fundamental Processes that just happen to yield slightly similar Results, but what i am trying to say is this:

Our understanding of the Natural World is limited to the Extent of our Observation, and then on top of it, our Rationalization.

Everything, before it goes into a scientific Paper, has to go through our Eyes, we have to acknowledge it, and then we have to rationalize it.

this does not Invalidate Science (The Practice), but it does mean that "Science" (Specifically in this case, institutional Science, the "Consensus" Reached within the Scientific community) can never be 100% always true, because our Knowledge is limited by our Capability to observe and on top of it to rationalize.

we can only understand insofar as the tools we have. if we have tools that can overlook, and Brains which can overlook, then where is the guarantee in our knowledge?