啱啱聽到主席好順口咁讀demarcation problem 仲諗住話其實主席嘅英文都唔係好似平時講到咁差 只係主席平時太謙虛 點知睇到最後🤦🏻
@StorytellerHK2 жыл бұрын
哈哈😂我當然係要練
@rayyee99342 жыл бұрын
其實幾中意衣家說仔啲片既長度
@renlee0102 жыл бұрын
理論有得修正就修正, 修正唔到就會放棄架啦
@whybothermr2 жыл бұрын
18:22 我認為唔完全係。 因為所有科學理論都係based on 啲科學家一啲特定嘅世界觀,就算呢啲世界觀所描述嘅一面係真實都好,我哋都好難知道係咪真實世界係咪冇其他面貌。 而如果無法得知呢件事嘅時候,我哋就好難判斷呢啲科學理論到底係咪係咪只係形容緊真實世界嘅特定面貌,而唔係各方面都包括到。 (Sor For 1999
Agreed. A better discussion would be to determine if such and such is indeed a useful functioning tool or not Rather than mumbling about the definition of science. Though understandable, this is a philosophical channel after all. Which is why I often prefer stoicism within this philosophical framework I do consider 命理 to have better real world application than mbti and general psychology (the big 5 etc) on profiling individuals, after diving in studying both topics rather than trying to define from the outside Agreed also on your second part. There are only so much that are explainable by modern day "science" While new studies from quantum physics are revealing otherwise. I have personal experiences on the unexplainable but won't get into it here.