Almost every field, if not even subfield uses different scientific method and it can change dramatically through time. One thing even a lot of scientists don't realise is that there's no one true way to do science.
-
-
But surely something else then “it feel this way to me”? You wrote a whole article about it, what main indicators would you use?
-
I did. Feel free to check it out. Twitter isn't idea too expound on my views, so I wrote an article.
-
'[scientism] is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems”' quote from Pinker from the article. So he does not think "only truth is that which can be reached via the scientific method".
-
No, that's the point. He doesn't REALLY think that. But he also does. It's an illogical position so it's not like anybody genuinely believes that science is the only path to truth. But many claim it is. That's the crux of the issue.
-
I have a feeling you think that by latching on to specific quotes from Pinker or Harris that you can "prove" they are not scientismists.
-
This is like saying that because a Christian isn't repenting for every single sin that they can't logically be Christian as why would anybody "rational" not repent if they sinned and if they believed in hell? This is not how to discover who is and is not Christian
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.