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.
-
-
Do you think that philosophy just argues about scientific evidence?
-
No, of course not. Who does think this and why? Many of them go on about metaphysics and other woo. I want to know if *yours* does. But actually, I don't any more. I think it is clear that you are not actually going to say anything and this is often the problem with philosophy.
End of conversation
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.