The difference is that I don't think knowledge itself is contingent or relative. We just have variable barriers to getting at it.
-
-
IMO yes, in his 'conjectures and refutations'. Often in humanities only his falsification theory is taught. That is not the whole story.
-
Would he disagree with the wine bottles & tennis ball example?
-
Yes. Knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. Observation or experiment never confirms theory 100%. Can only refute.
-
So we can only assume that bigger things don't fit inside smaller things coz every time it's been tried, it's failed?
-
Sokal & Bricmont acknowledge these kinds of points. We do need to go on reasonable hypotheses abt stable reality.
-
Corroborated hypotheses are all we have indeed. Improving on them = growth of knowledge.
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.