If Dawkins and Johnson had weird hair or something that correlated with an ideology that I thought was unethical, I'd be in favor of you mocking that hair. Calling them gammon isn't quite analogous. Though I don't think a culture where people call each other hams is bad?
Is scientific knowledge so continuous with all empirical knowledge that it makes it a little bit useless to talk about what is an isn't scientific? Why should we talk about whether something is or isn't scientific rather than what we have good or bad evidence for?
-
-
That's why, as I wrote in this article, demarcation serves to separate what is classed as 'empirical' from 'non-empirical'. http://nathanoseroff.com/files/papers/popperdemarcation.pdf …
-
Turns out Popper was a bad writer, and everyone ever has been misreading him. Huh. How are empirical statements according to Popper different than synthetic statements?
- 6 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.