all i'm saying, i guess in the most obtuse way possible is
science doesn't believe in universal truth. we don't engage with people who do because there is no mechanism THROUGH science to obtain a universal truth
the problem we have is BECAUSE of that when we say "truth" we mean, "accepted to the best of our knowledge and tested every single day"
which leads to the idiotic argument from "universal truthers" who come with the position "if it's TRUTH how come it can be WRONG"
which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS
Can we observe reality?
It's a simple yes or no. If you hold that statement as not true then we can't even start a debate. As it would be pointless.
If you answer yes. You have asserted no truth about the nature of anything except that it can be understood using your senses.
This is an axiomatic fundamental for even engaging in empiricism.
all i'm saying, i guess in the most obtuse way possible is
science doesn't believe in universal truth. we don't engage with people who do because there is no mechanism THROUGH science to obtain a universal truth
the problem we have is BECAUSE of that when we say "truth" we mean, "accepted to the best of our knowledge and tested every single day"
which leads to the idiotic argument from "universal truthers" who come with the position "if it's TRUTH how come it can be WRONG"
which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS
Then I agree with your statement. Excellently put btw.
<3