3 ms·
> You absolutely do lol, or you’re just straight wrong. This is false, an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct (
by zarathustreal 2y ago
> You absolutely do lol, or you’re just straight wrong.
This is false, an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct (without being derived from any science)
-
This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth which while interesting in the abstract, is not particularly interesting to me personally.
- darby_nine 2y ago> an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct How can you establish "correctness" without something like the scientific method? How do you even bind loosely-defined english to verifiable claims to real-life referents without agreeing with others on terms? No, you're chosen simple, comforting delusion over anything resembling objective truth. > This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth Yes, truth is an apriori concept; objective truth is a silly delusion. Coherence is generally a much stronger concept anyway.
- zarathustreal 2y agoCorrectness (of a given assertion) doesn’t need to be established to exist