| | Mike, I do not disagree.
If science weren't self-correcting, then it would be next to useless (a million, competing, crack-pot theories -- mixed in with some of the correct ones). What I'm saying is that there's a philosophy to science, and that it's objective -- and that the work of scientists, when they've failed to adopt correct philosophy, can be like knitting wool over the eyes, instead of being like drawn curtains allowing in the light. A thankfully-extreme example of this is the existence of creation science and creation scientists.
It has usually taken several decades for science to correct itself when "science" has been wrong. Another way to say this is that, beyond the obviously-insane and immediately-dismissible theories (things you'd have to strain yourself to even try to believe in), crack-pot theories can flourish for approximately an adult's life-time (likely because it is then when incorrigible, but entrenched, crack-pots die off -- and are replaced by active minds).
It usually takes several decades for science to correct itself, but it only takes several minutes for a competent philosopher to correct a wrong-thinking scientist. I know this because I've done it.
;-)
Ed
[someone not willing to wait decades for some things]
|
|
Objectivism is a philosophy which avers that knowledge is possible. Science is that knowledge, systematized and, when based on reason and observation, self-correcting.
