That’s why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you’re not making the point you think you are because that’s a sticking point in science.
It’s just been referred to as “natural ___” since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it’ll take a minute to break the habit.
Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go.
Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best.
You lost the argument up there.
How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer.
Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance.
By jury generally.
The question isn’t are they opinions it’s do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys.
Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists.
Add all of those together and it still doesn’t equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science.
That’s why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you’re not making the point you think you are because that’s a sticking point in science.
It’s just been referred to as “natural ___” since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it’ll take a minute to break the habit.
Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go.
You lost the argument up there.
How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer.
Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance.
By jury generally.
The question isn’t are they opinions it’s do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys.