Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 1494310" data-attributes="member: 9002">You are right; this is a very tired &quot;extreme&quot; position which posits, as you put it, that &quot;just because you can describe how it seems to work...&quot; does not imply anything beyond that.&nbsp; Kuhn taken to an extreme, as it were:&nbsp; this position is beloved by lit-crit types who, in general, stand to gain a lot if everything is just a &quot;narrative&quot; and a &quot;language system.&quot;&nbsp; It's also just a silly academic touchstone, typically beleived by precisely those people with little or not scientific experience/training.&nbsp; Because, as anyone with 10th grade (or lower) science education knows, one very good indication of a &quot;valid&quot; hypothesis is not simply &quot;describing&quot; how something works, but predicting it.&nbsp; With science, you can often predict outcomes before seeing them, to a very high degree of accuracy. Oten these &quot;extreme&quot; positions ignore very real and basic contributions of science to our understanding of the world.&nbsp; When you hit a rock with a spoon, does that &quot;cause&quot; a sound, or is it a magical beast that screams in pain?&nbsp; Take that spoon and hit a tree; the sound is different; is this a different beast screaming?&nbsp; Take the spoon, hit glass; yet another type of sound.&nbsp; Continue.&nbsp; Either &quot;science&quot; has told us something &quot;real&quot; about harmonics, vibrations, sound, etc. or it's just another narrative, one that curiously has strong predictive and replicative capabilities.Sorry.&nbsp; The world is simply more complicated than you assert.&nbsp; Not all narrative systems have the same value.&nbsp; Try again.Oh, and please, next time you get sick, don't take yourself to the &quot;science narrative&quot; which constitutes the local hospital ok?&nbsp; Instead, just stay in bed and make one up.&nbsp; It's equally valid, eh?&nbsp; It is no farther from to &quot;the truth&quot; than the doctors at the hospital, so, save yourself a trip.Another interesting thing posited by this extreme position is the &quot;unilateral&quot; truth assertion.&nbsp; No scientist I ever met belevies in this; that science &quot;gets at the fundamental truth of something.&quot;&nbsp; But they all think it gets closer to it than, say,&nbsp; another system like French Deconstruction.&nbsp; This is an obvious point (not knowing exactly how something works does not mean you don't know anything about how it works).&nbsp; But one philosphers enjoy forgetting, in this most absurd of debates.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 1494310, member: 9002"] You are right; this is a very tired "extreme" position which posits, as you put it, that "just because you can describe how it seems to work..." does not imply anything beyond that. Kuhn taken to an extreme, as it were: this position is beloved by lit-crit types who, in general, stand to gain a lot if everything is just a "narrative" and a "language system." It's also just a silly academic touchstone, typically beleived by precisely those people with little or not scientific experience/training. Because, as anyone with 10th grade (or lower) science education knows, one very good indication of a "valid" hypothesis is not simply "describing" how something works, but predicting it. With science, you can often predict outcomes before seeing them, to a very high degree of accuracy. Oten these "extreme" positions ignore very real and basic contributions of science to our understanding of the world. When you hit a rock with a spoon, does that "cause" a sound, or is it a magical beast that screams in pain? Take that spoon and hit a tree; the sound is different; is this a different beast screaming? Take the spoon, hit glass; yet another type of sound. Continue. Either "science" has told us something "real" about harmonics, vibrations, sound, etc. or it's just another narrative, one that curiously has strong predictive and replicative capabilities. Sorry. The world is simply more complicated than you assert. Not all narrative systems have the same value. Try again. Oh, and please, next time you get sick, don't take yourself to the "science narrative" which constitutes the local hospital ok? Instead, just stay in bed and make one up. It's equally valid, eh? It is no farther from to "the truth" than the doctors at the hospital, so, save yourself a trip. Another interesting thing posited by this extreme position is the "unilateral" truth assertion. No scientist I ever met belevies in this; that science "gets at the fundamental truth of something." But they all think it gets closer to it than, say, another system like French Deconstruction. This is an obvious point (not knowing exactly how something works does not mean you don't know anything about how it works). But one philosphers enjoy forgetting, in this most absurd of debates. [/QUOTE]

Verification