Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: The scientific meta-narrative [View all]AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)83. "no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate"
The only ones of those I know of are religions.
Science certainly doesn't fall into such a category.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My understanding of Descartes' thought is a little different from the way you present it.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#2
I find your response helfpful, and it clarifies my representation of Descartes
Thats my opinion
Mar 2012
#3
I think it's kind of interesting how appx. 14,999,600 years of something that might be referred to
patrice
Mar 2012
#5
is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago.
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#81
Okay, so make that appx. 14,997,200 years of something that was regarded as valuable
patrice
Mar 2012
#82
Good edit. And that one word is the difference between a discussion and a personal attack.
rug
Mar 2012
#48
I notice all the true believers in scientism have shown up to trumpet THEIR dogma. nt
Speck Tater
Mar 2012
#11
What the fuck is scientism? No seriously, this shit is literal nonsense. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#25
So basically its a perjorative used mostly by those ignorant in how science works...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#101
One of the most interesting American "anthropological" movies is "Dancing with wolves"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#84
Sokal's paper can be compared with the Bogdanov papers published in refereed Physics Journals.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#27
You mean publication of a ridiculous paper doesn't serve to undermine an entire field?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#35
A zinger? I realize that evidence will not have any effect on your belief system.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#91
So in post-modernism, if I say my paper is good, its good by default?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#95
If that were true, then tell us by what standards its claims are tested by. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#100
"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#83
"I think"; therefore thinking, the phenomenological field, is valid: from Descartes to Phenomenology
Brettongarcia
Mar 2012
#21
Do us all a favor, and no longer talk about science, I do mean at all...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#26
And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2012
#45
To be honest, I find post-modern theory much more off-putting than I find religion.
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#54
Can you cite a postmodern source that claims science claims to explain everything?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#72
I am not an expert on post-modernism; but the post-modernists whom I know personally have been
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#77