3 ms·
I don't see how the question contains a type error, any more than the question of the earth being round contains a type error.
by Strilanc 7y ago
I don't see how the question contains a type error, any more than the question of the earth being round contains a type error.
- johndoe42377 7y agoPhilosophy of science is an easy subject and a person of reasonable intelligence could grasp the principles without any difficulty. The current contest is not of experimentally verified facts, but of fancy abstract models. For funding and the high social status of an abstract "researcher". The vastly complex and expensive devices for "experiments" are made according to the current model - a layer upon layers of socially constructed abstractions. This is no different from theology. You could also read about positivism and acceptance of the limits of what could be known (not accepted or believed).
- antepodius 7y agoYes, the difficulty of making machines to test these ideas makes their results less trustworthy. But you're applying am uneven amount of ontological skepticism here. You talk about the 'limits of what could be known', but this applies just as much to your own senses or the existence of society as it does to the validity of scientific models.