It's also unlikely that I personally value only science & despise examining cultural myths for meaning and affective value. Seeing that I study how Christian narratives were made meaningful by women (1300-1700) rather than science. https://twitter.com/ThomasFriedman_/status/929435513932546048 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I don't think you don't understand, but still disagree. You say that you don't want to muddle the definition of truth, but it seems like you're the one with the muddled definition. It seems to me that most people use it in the wider sense. I believe I've even seen you do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @premodernism
Most people do, yes. Perhaps I have. I will be arguing that this is our default and it goes against our nature to distinguish but it is essential that we maintain an expectation that we do when discussing truth claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It is default because I think it's good enough to survive in the wild. Now we have science though and it is clear there is objective reality beyond human experience and the looser definition is not useful for that. Perhaps a concerted effort to narrow the definition will be good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Because our emotions developed first and our reasoning came in second. Facts are slippery, Stories are sticky. I will be making this argument soon.
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.