Well, AC, you are just as stupid as ever. It took a century or more of baby-steps to get there, not counting about 3000 years of fundamental mathematical research.

You are a moron. Calling it a thing it is not is a very anti-science thing to do. Really, how stupid can you get?

Bullshit. No concept of god is required, not even a negative one. You can derive that if the scientific method works then there is no god, but that goes the other way round. You can also not prove that the scientific method works, you can just observe it. Why do people always screw up implications?

I am pretty sure you are wrong, and not only because the scientific method has always existed and will always exist. It is "discovery", not "invention".

Always the same crappy non-journalism. There is not going to be any silver bullets or any miracle-material. Have people learned nothing?

It is not. The philosophical underpinning was reverse-engineered from observing that some meta-approaches work better than others. The scientific method is _not_ a research result from philosophy. Its description, on the other hand, is.

As to the "rule of law" in feudalism, look up "l'etat, c'est moi".

Did you miss the part where this bill is just one step in a certain direction?

Current elites are hard at work to get back to that state.

The "rule of law" is badly broken, have you noticed? It is basically a corrupt bureaucracy that serves to enforce whatever those in power want. You are also completely wrong about civilization.

I have once attended a lecture where a philosophy lecturer tried to explain propositional logic. This was so horribly done, I am sure none of the students understood anything. I also suspect the lecturer was mostly clueless as well. So if you do that, have a mathematician or a Computer Scientist teach it, at least they understand what it can and cannot do.

They don't underly the scientific method. Sorry. Philosophy is partially mathematics and partially funded on the scientific method. Any place where mathematics applies to reality (which are not a lot, considering the extreme diversity of mathematics), is "noisy" (i.e. no exact application), and the application is subject to the scientific method. While it is possible to do mathematics and parts of philosophy in ways not subject to the scientific method, these things then do not apply to (physical) reality and are generally not useful at all. Incidentally, all parts of philosophy and mathematics that are intended to apply to reality are founded on the scientific method. Really. The scientific method is what makes any kind of insight possible.

At least Chaotica has style and integrity. Not like those 3rd-rated crooks running the world currently.

The "more clueless" seems to be impossible to do, considering the levels presently observable in humans. The same for "less clues", as there are no clues at all that some bearded man is involved anywhere. There are a lot of clues to the contrary though.