This sort of ignorance is depressing to see. Dawkins needs to read about the philosophy of science. It's not as though the concept of science as a social construct is new or that it invalidates the findings of science.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368259842222268421 …
-
-
This. The arrogance of stating or presuming a “truth” is antithetical to scientific thinking, and hubristic. We do not know what will next expand our models, and the possibility of leaps as great as that between Newtonian and Relativistic physics remains as no GUT exists.
-
We always approximate what we see within the tiny streetlight we have that lights our little corner of the universe, and the flawed brain and senses that allow us to perceive it. Naming a “Truth” under such spotlight is very human but very silly.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@gorskon
Yep. I basically boiled down the conflict in the Skeptics arena into a philosophical disagreement: Positivism versus Post-Positivism. Positivists cling to radical objectivism & reject metaphysics while Post-positivists adhere to critical realism https://conjointly.com/kb/positivism-and-post-positivism/ … -
"The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable." This is science as described by scientists from Darwin to Dawkins. Are your "positivists" strawmen?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You really should read what Dawkins is saying - which he further clarifies in his follow-up tweet. There is a reality governed by rules - some of which can be understood and even harnessed. Don't you think that's worthy of a little awe and occasionally some emotive language?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.