Template talk:Critical theory, modernism and the death of objective truth: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Snippets: new section
(Created page with "Given the brightest minds still can’t reconcile the physics of atoms with that of galaxies, and neither provides a great explanation of what we experience at a human scale when we get in planes, we can’t really blame the relativist for arching an eyebrow at Professor Dawkins and his purported certainty. It seems rather a matter of ''faith''.<ref>If you need further evidence of the bad place modern cosmology finds itself in, try this: “{{plainlink|https://www.newsci...")
 
(→‎Snippets: new section)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 8: Line 8:


But preserving ''truth'' at the expense of ''consciousness'' is surely to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. The relativist says, why not keep the idea of consciousness and give up on truth?
But preserving ''truth'' at the expense of ''consciousness'' is surely to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. The relativist says, why not keep the idea of consciousness and give up on truth?
== Snippets ==
And our [[cultural relativist]] might even be an aircraft engineer with a degree in advanced aerodynamics and good grounds for believing the plane’s design to be an excellent based on known data. She just needs to hold her opinions provisionally, recognising that, as with all knowledge arrived at through induction it cannot be proven, and is by nature ''subject to revision''.
After all, Science’s history is of astounding hypotheticals that up-end the previously-settled wisdom of the world’s cleverest scientists. And for all Professor Dawkins’s grumbling, JC is not aware of any university physics department that has closed yet on account of mission completion. [[User:Amwelladmin|Amwelladmin]] ([[User talk:Amwelladmin|talk]]) 11:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Navigation menu