As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.
Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.
Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.
You are not wrong that I should read a book on epistemology. But why do you ask me how science can create knowledge? If you have read those books yourself, you should know.
You are wrong on the point that essential decisions can be made without history. You don’t know the first thing about what knowledge actually is, and I asked you that because I didn’t think you could answer and it confirmed for me that you are uneducated.
You didn’t do the barest minimum of work on this, your opinion is uneducated and you are being disrespectful.
You apparently have no idea
Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?
Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.
Nah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.
As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.
Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.
Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.
You are not wrong that I should read a book on epistemology. But why do you ask me how science can create knowledge? If you have read those books yourself, you should know.
You are wrong on the point that essential decisions can be made without history. You don’t know the first thing about what knowledge actually is, and I asked you that because I didn’t think you could answer and it confirmed for me that you are uneducated.
You didn’t do the barest minimum of work on this, your opinion is uneducated and you are being disrespectful.
You may be right. Then please explain to me how history is needed for science.