• seeigel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • seeigel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            You may be right. Then please explain to me how history is needed for science.