Posted: Feb 24, 2016 2:14 am
by Cito di Pense
Hobbes Choice wrote:But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.

It looks as if you just did. Intellectual History. The uppercase says it all, so you don't have to.

Hobbes Choice wrote:The idea that uniformitarianism was not always accepted is a no brainer; as is the idea that science just blindly collects pure data and then and only then develops a theory is a school boy simplification. All experiments assume a theory; it more like a hermeneutic circle, of testing re-testing, and refining.

We know that Kuhn said it and that you believe it. Now what?

Hobbes Choice wrote:You might also like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His main concern it demonstrating the resistance to change in science, and moments of big shifts in its history; but for the most part "Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none." Thomas Kuhn.
He also talked about "Theory Ladenness".

Ah, OK. That's what. If we didn't assume that nature worked this way, there wouldn't be much point in scientific work, would there? The success of scientific work somewhat bears out the assumption, don't you think? Looks as if you're one of those folks waving the banner of theory-ladenness with a fact so trivial, no one can dispute it. You win this one, hands down. This kind of intellectual knuckle-walking is why your rehearsal of intellectual history is so brief.

Hobbes Choice wrote:When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.

What did I tell ya? Meanwhile, in another tent in this circus, THWOTH is handling a creationist this way:

THWOTH wrote:The whole 'atheist ideoligy' shtick is basically a disingenuous exercise in false equivalence. Creationists go in for this in a big way - casting evolution or whatever science they take issue with as just some kind of random idea so they can say, "If you're allowed to have your ideas I'm allowed to have mine."