3 ms·
You are making an argument about a single scientist and a single experiment. I am making an argument about the aggregation of knowledge created by all scientif
by thephyber 5y ago
You are making an argument about a single scientist and a single experiment.
I am making an argument about the aggregation of knowledge created by all scientific experiments since at least The Enlightenment.
Admittedly truth is difficult to pin down, but science has been the best engine for helping humankind overcome myths and superstitions and give tools for people to use evidence to come to a common understanding of a common objective truth.
- kgarten 5y agoMy point is more that "being human" limits any type of knowledge acquisition, as we are tribal/political beings. Check the nature podcasts I linked to, they go into quite some detail and give good examples. I don't think, we as humans can understand an objective truth. A concept of knowledge makes only sense if we as species can comprehend it. This means knowledge and intelligence need to be embodied. Yet, if they are, they must be limited by the embodiment. Foucault makes some interesting arguments around that.