This doesn't mean it is never worthwhile, however. Should be done reluctantly, perhaps.
-
-
-
Lots of things are neither science nor truthseeking that must sometimes be done. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't doing science - but he didn't claim to be, or set up shop in a university as an arbiter of complicated facts.
-
Only those that believe in the myth of the fact/value dichotomy would agree with this.
-
not a myth tho
-
I don't believe in two kinds of truth.
-
Interesting. What book is this? But, wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate "the myth of the fact/value dichotomy" by logically deriving a value statement from a factual statement? Can you do that real quick? I'd love to see it!
-
This argument has always seemed dishonest to me. "It's impossible to go to Mars. If I'm wrong, just prove it by flying to Mars." All accurate statements about the world are statements of fact. Therefore accurate value statements are factual statements. There is no dichotomy.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Oh snap! Take that, Galileo, for thinking that your critique of geocentrism and papal power were intimately linked. What a schmuck. -_-
-
My friend is a Catholic. Can she still believe in geocentrism?
-
My knowledge of Galileo's motives is quite limited, but I'm not aware of any "I'm going to search for evidence that will support my anti-Catholic advocacy" goals. He just described what he found, which threatened Church because of THEIR advocacy goals.
-
But then what happened? His "description" of his "findings" would have been forgotten if the existing power structures had remained unchallenged by evidence gathered by his scientific method.
-
It's irrelevant whether we remember his story or not. Others were going to find the same thing, repeatedly and repeatably. Real science is like that. Who found it first and what the Church's reaction was is an interesting chapter in history but irrelevant to the actual science.
-
Eliezar clearly understands that real science, unlike politics and other religions (theistic or non-theistic) that try to pose as science to appear more credible, is about looking for what patterns actually exist, not looking for support for a pre-determined cause.
-
So would you then include social sciences in this definition? Because that seems to be what the OP is militating against.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ugh. This is the worst take.
-
Any good criticism besides knee jerk reaction?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wrong. All science starts with a hypothesis, whose choice puts some results more on the agenda than others. There is no such thing as "neutral" inquiry. Also, critique ≠ criticize.
-
The purpose of forming a hypothesis is not (necessarily) related to having an agenda. It is merely the thing being tested. Neutral inquiry is when one does not reject results just because they disagree with preconceptions or desires about what is true.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So you don't know what the word "critque" means. Kant: "Reason sucks!"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.