Examples vs. counterexamples.
I didn’t say that. There is no guarantee and no rule on timing - look at the history.
The only truth is that all humans are biased due to their religious/philosophical views …and it shows.
I only need one example to prove the statement incorrect. I can provide many examples. Meanwhile you haven’t provided any examples as evidence that it is true.
1 Like
That’s illogical. Max Plank did not make an absolute claim.
Max Planck did. And you quoted him.
Are you sure you want to make militant post-modernism “the hill you die on”?
“The only truth” – really?
Pontius Pilate asked a rhetorical question when he sentenced Jesus to crucifixion: “What is truth?”
Jesus, on the other hand, made a different and quite astonishing epistemological claim: “I am the way, and the truth.”
My commitment is to Jesus as the ground of all truth. I had thought, based on your inclination toward intelligent design, that you probably shared that commitment. Did I misunderstand?
Best regards,
Chris Falter
1 Like
I don’t see any qualifications here.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
And you quoted it without introducing any qualifications. If you admit this statement isn’t absolute, then it’s useless for your argument. Until you can provide evidence demonstrating the extent to which it is true (if at all), it’s also useless for your argument.
1 Like
Don’t be so intolerant.
Only with regards to this discussion. Come on, Chris - of course not absolute.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t address the point.
1 Like
Max Planck’s statement doesn’t surprise me at all when I consider the time in which he lived. Planck lived through Nazi Germany where entire fields of science were repressed as “Jewish science.” He saw science governed from the top down until those in power were dead and scientists were allowed to think freely again!
We are all products of the times in which we live. If I had been a scientist in Nazi Germany, I have no doubt that I would have said something similar. (Keep in mind that Darwin and all evolutionary biology books were on the Die Bucherei banned book lists.)
2 Likes
Perhaps you missed my request for some names of scientists who illustrate that fault of trying “to disprove opposing hypotheses, not theirs.”
If this is truly a common trait among scientists, it should be a simple matter of providing some citations for such behavior. Could you please post some of your favorite examples of which you speak?
Thank you.
2 Likes
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, @NonlinOrg. You can’t inject the gangrene of radical post-modernism into the leg of science and think that somehow it will not spread to the rest of the epistemological body–including history, theology, and Biblical studies.
Moreover, if radical post-modernism applies to science, there’s no point talking about–much less doing-- science; it would be 100% unsupported opinion and bias. Yet you have staked your claim on the stance that science cannot produce useful, falsifiable models. I don’t know how you argued your way onto that epistemological island, but don’t expect many people to join you there.
Godspeed,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
I did not, but this discussion isn’t going anywhere.
Huh? You’re misinterpreting.
Time to put an end to this sterile discussion.