The Infallible Pope

I noticed such a word on urban dictionary in the form of "vocabularise". I was going to use it in the sense of "Is it really possible then, for humans to go around examining the colour spectrum in all it's nuances and inevitably vocabularising an infinite quantity of new words to describe every single slight variation in shades of colour".

By the ever increasing quantities of thoughts of narcissism, arrogance and fundamentalism that pollute people’s minds.

Why do people insist that sociology cannot be a reliable academic discipline because it isn’t a science?

I myself grow tired of the empirical pursuit adopted by the youth of today, with regards to this approach I lack compliance.

They assert that it is foolish to believe in that which isn’t sensible; to reiterate the youth of today don’t believe in history.

However not only do the humanities suffer, but also the social sciences and the professional sciences are all thrown into the same cluster.

I would prefer not to succumb to digression; rather we must identify the nub of this argument with pertinent precision.

Where would we be if not for the influence of sociology?

Not here because we would assume the certainty of the altruistic revelations of pathology.

Until the scrutiny of sociology was embraced, the malleability of mental health was perceived as the product of doctor’s infallibility.

Until the scrutiny of sociology was embraced, upper social mobilisation was attempted to no avail, yet now the absence of authoritarian regimes prevails.

Thus the independence and power of the person today that can be observed, is wholly due to the scepticism, agnosticism and activism of sociology that we must preserve.

Don't mean anything specific with style. Just maybe they use a similar technique to do their growls, or they merely sound alike.

Would it just be if the curve is rather long and so the specific point at which the f''(x) = 0 is stretched out over a longer patch of x.

Beveridge?

Or, is it a matter of necessity, philosophically?

P1 - We can derive a priori truths

P2 – It is clear when we contemplate about the world that a god is necessary due to the cosmological argument; we cannot allow an infinite regress, so there must be a cause.

P3 - Even if we agree that not everything needs a direct cause, i.e. quantum vacuum, then we still must surely concede that something must of have pre-existed quantum vacuums for them to occur, if so what, we still get the regress.

C1 – There must be a prime mover, be it sentient or not.

P4 – The eternality of said prime mover must be a contingent truth due to the fact that we exist and that a prime mover likely supersedes everything else and is unaffected by time.

P5 - It then follows that because said prime mover is the sole cause of all else that it must be superior to all else, at some fundamental, non-anthropomorphic level. Hence why this prime mover must be perfect, as the rest of the universe has its own boons, but nothing else is perfect.

P6 - Because we exist then it follows that a perfect prime mover must exist, not necessarily in the philosophical sense, but at least as a contingent truth with regards to this universe. The only suitable concept of such a prime mover that we have at present is that of ‘God’.

C2 - God, in its hegemonic conception, is likely to exist.

Assume that no two people are exactly the same height. Is this statement true or false?

somebody to commit homicide is posited, then can such an assertion be proved (acknowledging it's absoluteness) synthetically if synthetic justification is subject to the induction fallacy.

I study ethics and I would like to understand what quantum mechanics has to say about determinism. Apparently quantum mechanics actually dictates that the world isn't determined in the sense that the future is certain to occur, instead what future occurs depends on chance. Why is this? I tried to look at this on wikipedia but it didn't help me at all unfortunately.

1) What I mean here is in the context of this sentence "The tendency of myself to accept unconditionally that which others of a perceived superior position to me x, I believe has..." Basically that X would be say, the tendency to accept what others say, but i want a negative synonym, like for example blabber (suggests that they are talking nonsense/rubbish, just uttering shite), but this is too formal for a term like blabber which is blatantly colloquial.

2) If I say a sentence then use a period. Then say "Allow to elaborate on such", how do I actually make this read properly? Do I say allow me to elaborate -, or do I use a :, a semi colon, a what? Or should I not break it up into two separate sentences (also this would be difficult due to the length of my previous sentence, although I guess I could use a ; there.

The answer is logₐ(3a^2) but I dunno how to get that.

of age ceremony. Incidentally did I use whom right, or should be who there?

Would this include the inter-glacial periods of an ice-age. Is this just the period in which we are not in an ice-age or is it a distinct period in itself?