@Skliwz 'because technology is useful, the scientific method is semantic'. Well, there are people who argue for semantic-supremacy and for syntactic-supremacy. I don't think you are bringing such arguments with this assertion. You seem to suggest that semantics is objective by default, and syntax is generally subjective. I don't think any serious philosopher would agree with this. Both can be very subjective or objective, depending on the situation, and details. The scientific method is an algorithm, with is obviously syntactic, with semantic elements.

@Skliwz There are still many technologies we use without understanding the science. 60% of pharmaceuticals are still in this category. And modern technology, is just qualitatively the same as it ever was. What has changed now? What is your argument? It seems you want to contradict something I said, but I can't really understand what?

@Sklivvz What is your argument? Technology need not always come from science or the scientific method. Man was using iron long before he had the periodic chart, or even knew atoms. You could have a much broader definition of science itself, but it is tricky. Many important technologies were invented by sheer accident, and guesswork, not by any thesis-validation approach.

You have to shared assumptions (semantics), and a common syntactic model before something can be shown right or wrong. In your case, you share neither, and hence there can't be meaningful discourse of any kind.

You believe in the scientific method and wikipedia, and your friends in holy books?

We still don't know enough about the neurobiological basis of consciousness to make such claims.

Nothing and something are linguistic entities. That should allow you to bypass ontology altogether.

'and in the capacity to assert shared ideas'. This is a meaningless statement really. If you share a set of values, then there is no reason to assert them. On the other hand, if you assert values you do not share, or differ in degree, it can be reinterpreted in many cases as cultural imperialism, and things of that kind. The French say such things about American attitudes. Such views are also quite common in the post-colonial stuff, regarding Indian colonial analysis etc. Analytic philosophy, thus performs the useful role of getting philosophy done without getting into this mess.

When was politics free of religion? When was American politics free of religion? Sure since 9/11, the world has become more unstable, to that regard. But there is nothing that is fundamentally on any wrong track, I would argue. The world has been through much worse political crises. And using 'postmodernism' as a whipping boy is sheer lunacy and idiocy. Postmodernism and deconstruction, is not any state sanctioned ideology. It is just a set of ideas that exists in the the public square, within the perimeters of enlightenment values, just like any other.