If Richard Dawkins read a little bit more of the philosophy of science that he purports to despise, he would know the difference between an epistemological framework, and the ontological truths it aims to uncover.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368259842222268421 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @CT_Bergstrom
Jan Hartmann Retweeted Richard Dawkins
The only thing Dawkins says in that quote is that there is such a thing as objective reality. And I don't understand how any serious scientist could be offended by that.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368599737696452611 …
Jan Hartmann added,
Richard DawkinsVerified account @RichardDawkinsOBVIOUSLY by “science’s truths”, I meant the truths about the real world that science aspires to find, NOT scientists’ beliefs during any particular historical era – phlogiston, etc. My point was only that there’s such a thing as objective reality – denied by postmodern pseuds.Show this thread4 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @pelagicbird @CT_Bergstrom
He quite literally started out by stating explicitly that “science is not a social construct” and then used his following observations to try to “prove” that it is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @CT_Bergstrom
He simply and rightly turned against the nonsense of postmodern philosophy. But people seem to prefer smart ass discussions about the exact wording of his tweet. Not my piece of cake.https://www.nature.com/articles/BF28089 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.