3 ms·
> Sorry, there, but "objectivity" is not up for debate. It really obviously is up for debate, all the way from the fundamental question of whether objective kn
by bowsamic 4y ago
> Sorry, there, but "objectivity" is not up for debate.
It really obviously is up for debate, all the way from the fundamental question of whether objective knowledge is accessible at all, to things like the measurement problem in quantum mechanics
- Cupertino95014 4y ago> It really obviously is up for debate "obviously" to you, I guess. Not to anyone else who realizes that life expectancy beyond 30 and absence of periodic famines with mass starvation is the result of objectivity. > whether objective knowledge is accessible at all How to make steel, plumb our houses, cure our bacterial infections, and bring A/C power to them is not knowledge that's "accessible to all." Most of us are happy that someone somewhere knows how to do those things. That's called "division of labor." > whether objective knowledge is accessible at all Kind of like the missing link in the fossil record which causes creationists to say "Look! Darwin was wrong!": quantum mechanics is the difficult-to-understand problem giving an easy out to people who don't believe in science anyway. Give it a rest.
- bowsamic 4y agoTry reading my comment again more slowly. You based your response on an accidental misreading of what I said (you swapped "at all" to "to all").
- Cupertino95014 4y agoAh, right, sorry. "At all" is equally fatuous, though. The philosophical problem of whether objective knowledge is attainable was settled centuries ago. "How do you really know that Einstein's Relativity is valid?" is something that was settled when its predictions were borne out. If there are still questions about it, those will be settled by more science.
- bowsamic 4y agoIdk, I side with Kant on this issue. Hegel has not convinced me yet. Maybe he has convinced you