I don't fight for science because I believe in it, I fight for it because I don't. I am like any good "scientist" an iconoclast. I see that position as the most consequential to science there could be.
I think some people see science as something it is not, a blinkered establishment in a sea of woe. That is not the case, atm the reach of science exceeds it's grasp, what is healthy though is there are so many people trying to destroy everything it stands for out there, that it can only thrive. I know where theory is and I can describe it, what I cannot and would not say is that it is where it should be.
"The duty of the Good Scientist is doubt everything and believe nothing."
Me just then.
I fail to see the flaw in this. But you do get a lot of people claiming science is dead, science is past, science is killing it self. Well of course it fucking is that which doesn't not kill it makes it, you can't kill a sphere of science by destroying everything it holds dear. All you can do is make it stronger.
So simple question where's the beef? And is it tough for you to chew on it?
Why the post modernism in a modern age?
My position
-
mickthinks
- Posts: 1816
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: My position
That position seems to me to be incoherent.
Re: My position
No offense but it's indolence your answer, and you should do better. This is not I have an opinion forum which I express with no reason is it? Or is it?
Mcthinks you're wasting your time on this forum, unless you answer a question properly without just saying it's just this. Waste of space mate, waste of anyone's time posting a 1 sentence answer like that, without answering the point. You might as well have not posted at all.
I am asking why a lot of people want to go back to the days of no evidence just having to rely on something else, why post modernism is becoming popular over evidence. You're telling me it's incoherent why is it?
I can only assume you agree that a reversal in modern thinking is apposite, and we must now just revert to post modernism where evidence and reasoning on it is less important or not important at all, we hence should look to the past for answers, we should regress. Unless you say otherwise I will say that is what you condone..?
Mcthinks you're wasting your time on this forum, unless you answer a question properly without just saying it's just this. Waste of space mate, waste of anyone's time posting a 1 sentence answer like that, without answering the point. You might as well have not posted at all.
I am asking why a lot of people want to go back to the days of no evidence just having to rely on something else, why post modernism is becoming popular over evidence. You're telling me it's incoherent why is it?
I can only assume you agree that a reversal in modern thinking is apposite, and we must now just revert to post modernism where evidence and reasoning on it is less important or not important at all, we hence should look to the past for answers, we should regress. Unless you say otherwise I will say that is what you condone..?