This is mostly about definitions, but I pers. don't see why that shouldn't be called science. If your ideas are falsifiable, it's science.
I don't think you can tell people what they should find interesting. It won't change what they actually do find interesting.
-
-
Its way more important whether people are right or wrong to think what they do but for me the interest is in understanding how they think.
-
This is why I focus on how women thought about religion, the connections they made & use they made of it even tho God seems not to exist
-
Yes, but you still want to know if what you are thinking about that topic resembles anything real. So, you need to test-reject-accept hypo.
-
I do, yes, but even tho I think God is not real, I've still spent 20 years looking at how people think about God because that is interesting
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting from the perspective of growth of knowledge that is. I don't presume to prescribe ways of life to individuals. ;)
-
I wonder if this is a gendered thing? You are goal-focused -what is true - and I am more interested in understanding how people think.
-
We see this in conversation. Men more likely to focus on information exchange, women more likely to explore how everybody feels abt things.
-
My problem with PoMo is that it tries to make 'how people think & feel abt things' into 'multiple truths about things.' No. Stop it.
-
Which is why I insist on falsification.
-
For truth claims. Yes. I agree with you there.
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.