|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2011 : 17:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
What she is trying to do, it seems, is create some new space where we can set these things she calls "personal knowledge" and ignore them or remain silent about them. |
I think it's a pretty old space, one which was only rarely probed (Russell, Sagan) until the last decade or two (maybe).| On the other hand she says that science and scientific skepticism are about truth. |
And even untestable claims are assertions of truth. If they can't be assessed scientifically, they should be assessed in some other fashion. Hell, the truth of science can't even be assessed scientifically - one has to resort to rationalism coupled with some other philosophy, like utilitarianism.| These statements are generating some cognitive dissonance when I try to reconcile them. |
Maybe the pain that cognitive dissonance is causing Drescher is what made her lash out at Marcotte.| You can't say that science and scientific skepticism are the road to discovering truth and at the same time declare that some things can't be evaluated with them. |
Well, most people don't declare them to be the sole method of finding truth. Logic isn't science, but logic is a necessary tool for Skepticism.| Drescher also seems to be mixing up her justified irritation with those atheists who aren't actually versed in the basic tools of skepticism with this. |
Yeah, there are definitely two issues here. Conflating them doesn't help solve either one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
The scope of skepticism
