3 ms·

"I have to confess I never thought of that, but it's beside the point." Because real arguments are not about the provable facts, but about their relevance.

• lutusp 12y ago
  > "I have to confess I never thought of that, but it's beside the point." Not in a debate about the existence of objectivity -- nothing can be more relevant or to the point. I chose that example for a reason -- arguing the postmodernist thesis always reflects a fatal misunderstanding of the subject and its effect on debate. > Because real arguments are not about the provable facts, but about their relevance. No, at least to a scientist, real arguments are about empirical facts, not the subjective persuasiveness of facts or their assumed relevance. "Relevance" is certainly a more subjective issue than whether a "fact" actually agrees with reality. The reason is that relevance must await the gathering of reliable facts and their assembly into a theory. It is only after a theory synthesizes the facts can the facts' relevance even be assessed. The shapes of finches' beaks is completely irrelevant at first sight, but after they're used as evidence for a theory of natural selection, their relevance becomes enormous. My reason for emphasizing the scientific outlook is because science possesses more potential to craft an objective outlook than any other human endeavor. In science, when done correctly, a given set of observations forces all similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion, regardless of their personal views. This is either less true, or not true at all, in every other human activity.
  • KC8ZKF 12y ago
    I have to confess I never thought of that, but it's beside the point.