Every time Dawkins dumps on religion, my feed is full of people patiently explaining to him how he gets it wrong. And yet he keeps doing it. Is it too much to ask that a proponent of science and rationality should rationally update his beliefs in light of new evidence? Ah...https://twitter.com/ErikAngner/status/1103604440970469376 …
-
Every time he does this people point out that the concept of continental philosophy is no more ridiculous than the concept of a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. You'd think somebody who celebrates science and rationality would get it.
But is that true? Do physicists disagree about what would count as evidence in assessing the merit of particular theses? Do they disagree about what counts as proper modes of argumentation? Maybe they do... I'm not sure.
-
-
Absolutely. Arguments about string theory, for example, are wild.
-
So the mathematics is different? Different rules? No agreement about fundamental axioms? If so, that's interesting, but I don't think not knowing that, or thinking it's different from the difference between say Tim Williamson & Heidegger, is a matter of rejecting rationality.
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.