Is there a prior to the invention of science? Humans have been testing things and using the evidence provided for as long as we existed. 'Scire' - to know as a fact. However, we can also apply science to very old data. Not sure what the relevance of this tweet is.
I don't know what that means but I am bored now so I will leave it here.
-
-
My initial point was that Dawkins defines truth narrowly as verifiable information, and that it is only by keeping that narrow definition that you can oppose truth and meaningfulness. Truth, though, does not just refer to scientific verifiability. But OK: I'll stop boring you.
-
Well, yes. You can assert that 'truth does not just refer to scientific verifiability' and other people, like Dawkins and like me, will say that is the whole problem. Calling things which have not been established by evidence 'truth.' That is what we are criticising,
-
If you say you use the word 'truth' to describe things which have been established to be true by evidence and to describe things which have not been established to be true by evidence, I can only ask you to consider not doing so, particularly with post-truth problem going on.
-
Your point that Dawkins calls things true when this has been established by evidence did not really need to be made because that is not at all ambiguous. The difference is that I think he is right to do so and you think he is wrong.
-
He's not wrong. I believe in science. The discussing you and I are having isn't scientific but philosophical, yet it's still a question of evidence, but not scientific evidence. And we are concerned with agreeing or disagreeing not about what is meaningful but about what is true.
-
I really can't put my position across any more clearly than I have. You can either address it clearly as it is or not. You have chosen not and I have things to do.
-
It's true that science is based on evidence. But there are other kinds of evidence than just scientific. Philosophical argument, for example, is based on other kinds of evidence. Philosophical arguments still concern questions of truth and evidence, but in fields outside science.
-
I don't know what 'other kinds of evidence than just scientific' means. Science is a methodology based on evidence. Other fields like history also rely on evidence but may not be considered science. If your philosophy relies on evidence, good. We have no disagreement.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.