Thanks Heartlander.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Posted on 12/12/2017 11:58:16 AM PST by Heartlander
Thanks Heartlander.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Thanks Heartlander.
Thanks Heartlander.
Unfortunately, truth itself has become politicized.
What a blabbermouth.
Fantastic article!
It certainly shows the fault lines we are seeing. The science the left is weaponizing isn’t science at all (”postmodern”? OK, if that’s what they’re calling it now)
That Feyerbrand guy looks at science as through multicultural lenses? Or is he describing the philosophy of others (who, by the way, think philosophy is passe)?
This explains a lot, so the article is worth reading in its entirety. Modern science (falsely-so-called) slides this way and that in order to fit predispositions. Aha! And we are called “anti-science”?
No, science is derived from actual experimentation with PHYSICAL stuff, and data, then more experiments, etc. The chips fall where they do and you count them and try to determine cause and effect if possible.
These lefty, multicultural (my voodoo is science; your science is voodoo) postmodern charlatans are the real science-haters; we are not. We admire and exploit science, but only if it’s real.
So THAT’s where we got this multiverse horsesnit?
The primary error espoused by the subjectivists is this: Truth by definition is objective ~ there can only be ONE truth, not multiple truths/realities.
Right. The whole concept of something being true because it is based on objective facts is abhorrent to the Left. Objective facts reveal the whole Leftist agenda lacks credibility, hence the Left appeals to emotional arguments that are largely untethered from facts.
So the author might makes his point (who doesn't) all the while arrogating verbosity and being cute with double-entendres.
Why does he have to do that? In journalism, anything goes.
Sorry, why does she have to do this?
At first, I thought this was an article about quantum physics.
Because, if it can happen, it will.
Actually, “he” is a she, named Denyse. She wrote this in Salvo, a magazine dedicated to preserving old-school values and, usually, a Biblical worldview.
I liked the article. It could have been even more verbose; but she condensed its scope and content to fit into an editorial style, I think.
Well, I disagree, and so does Strunk and White. Why wrap your head about double negatives? We are disposed to complicate things so much, and for many reasons, one of them is to arrogate, another is to mask.
Well, for me, the article helped to unmask, not mask. She was reviewing a book, by Ruse (unfortunate name). In process of that review, she added the Feyerband science-philosophy element, which was helpful to me.
I saw no double-negatives.
Alright, step two for you then.
Feyerabend stated that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests.
The triumphs of science that have benefitted human life stand as a monument to the power of reason, and they stand as a clear refutation of the skepticism that is epidemic in contemporary philosophy of science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
