Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
In fact, Tooblue's point is that "scientists" who claimed they "know" the age of fossils have in fact really engaged in a form of belief, relying on the accuracy of the methods available to them which can change and then the state of their "knowledge" changes. So for your average schmuck like me, it is just a belief. I think this position is well-supported by his posted links and by the reality of a pursuit for knowledge, even one rigorously based on the scientific method.
|
The problem, however, is when people use the inevitable tendency of scientific knowledge to change as a rationalization for failure of religious fundamentalism to find any support in empricism or reason, or worse, as tooblue seems to do, as a basis for arguing that there is no such thing as objectively verifiable truth. Is it really so hard to appreciate that endless testing and reassesment of received truths is part and parcel of empiricism? Can the same thing be said of religion? On the contrary. Is it so hard to appreciate that incremental accumulation of objectively verifiable truth is (perhaps paradoxically) as well part and parcel of empricism, and what saves us from ignorance? I wish I understood better what tooblue's point was. He keeps stating the obvious but conclusions he draws from such unsurprising developments in scientific fields seem bizarre, if I get them, and I'm not sure I do.