Axiology is intrinsic and therefore not relative. That means there are right answers and there are wrong answers to the question of which goods are greater and which goods are lesser.
It's really type resonant that you used COBOL (IN ALL CAPS) for your high school project. Makes for good high school memorabilia. I hope you used Greek gods for all of your variable names.
Why does Frequentism and Bayesianism give slightly different answers? Could someone look through every logistics involving tanks in history and see whether the Bayesian or Frequentist approach is closer, thereby gaining evidence for which interpretation is the correct one?
Estimate presupposes estimating something in objective reality. Because the verb "to estimate" takes a direct object. Therefore if there are two estimates, and they differ, one is closer to objective reality than the other.
Your comment is asking which of two methods of estimating is correct.
Neither is correct, in that neither gives the actual objective truth. Both are correct, in that they both give you estimates that can only be incorrect if they give a zero probability to the actual objective truth.
Even statistically, assume the true value is 0. Is "2 ±5" or "1 ±7" the better estimate? Assume the methods used to derive them consistently yield similar estimates. Which one is the correct method?
Atomism is a philosophically offensive position to those of Tesla's personality type. Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry against it (while barely admitting an instrumental interpretation of atoms for chemistry). It's almost as bad as evolution!
Charitably I’m going to ascribe this to ignorance and not dishonesty. You may not be aware but Catholic dogma has no problem whatsoever with evolution, an old Earth, heliocentrism, or any number of other more or less fashionable opinions. The Catholic encyclopedia is over a century old and it shows. Perhaps you failed to understand the article you attempted to read? Nevertheless, here[1] is the entry on atomism for those who are interested.
The article immediately distinguishes between philosophy and science while you appear to be, for some reason, conflating them:
Atomism [a privative and temnein to cut, i.e. indivisible] is the system of those who hold that all bodies are composed of minute, indivisible particles of matter called atoms. We must distinguish between
1) atomism as a philosophy and
2) atomism as a theory of science.
It was neither ignorance nor dishonesty, my friend. It was measuring Tesla according to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church at his time in history.
And I mentioned "atomism as a theory of science" under the instrumentalism part of my comment. In Catholic Theology, philosophy always means "ontological interpretation". That section you quoted is saying that Catholics are allowed to believe in atomism as an instrumental model, but not as the ultimate interpretation of how the Universe works.
> In Catholic Theology, philosophy always means "ontological interpretation"
That's a rather bold claim. It implies that Catholic theologians are, among other things, uninterested in ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, just to name a few other subjects of interest to philosophers. I'm frankly baffled that you would reach such a conclusion, but OK.
> Catholics are allowed to believe in atomism as an instrumental model, but not as the ultimate interpretation of how the Universe works
Well to be Catholic you have to believe in an ultimate eternal God, so ultimately we believe that everything in the universe is both created and sustained by Him and everything observable is some kind of instrumentality, be it evolution, quantum electrodynamics, or anything else. Nevertheless that doesn't in any pragmatic way restrict one's ability to form scientific hypotheses or theories. Indeed it's arguably closer to the Newtonian ideal of focusing on accurate description of phenomena.
The Bible, the Catechism, various works by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, to name a few, and the liturgical prayers of the Church to name just a few sources. I assume the Eva reference is meant to be mocking, but the Japanese artists who created it were very much intrigued and influenced by western theological and spiritual thought. Much like how many westerners are intrigued and influenced by eastern theological and spiritual thought.
In short, instrumentality deals with the how of God achieving His will. God, the incarnation excepted, is pure spirit, so in order to achieve His will materially He created and then used physical laws, among other things. The Big Bang is the greatest billiard break in cosmic history. So, for the well-formed Catholic, the possibility and apparent likelihood that God achieved the creation of Man using, among other instruments, evolution from lower life forms, isn't at all a problem.
