- As usual, this is humanities masquerading as science, because science has explanatory power, whereas Archived Message
Posted by Shyaku
on December 27, 2019, 11:04 am, in reply to "Donald Hoffman on the unreality of 'reality'. Not directly 'news' media stuff, but important for the"
|
The humanities have foundation funding that comes indirectly from the CIA and associated luminaries, and therefore the humanities and social sciences are currently politically ascendent. They very badly need a "theory of everything". Donald Hoffman's appointment is in the School of Social sciences. viz. the school of, among other things, gender politics, psychological operations and post-modernism. I am very sorry, this is not 'hard science'. Hard sciences are based in the School of Physical Sciences. The desire is, of course, for people to parrot this as the "hard sciences" - it sounds prestigious. In a similar manner, the church of christ the scientist goes mainstream in the MSM with the Christian Science Monitor: https://www.csmonitor.com That's not hard science either. Its just using a word ("science") that has prestige, like "green" or "sustainable". If I am not mistaken social science used to be called sociology. What he says in the video maybe true, and then again, it may not: The point being that there are ideas, and then there are tested ideas. The two tend to be very different, and tend to cleave between the social sciences and the physical sciences. That tends to be why, in the physical sciences, in a broad manner, one idea typically builds upon the shoulders of previous ideas over decades and centuries - even millenia. Its called standing the test of time. Even then, nothing in the physical sciences is regarded as absolutely conclusive. That's my caution for the day. Nothing wrong with ideas that break the mould, but until they are tested, they are simply ideas - provocative or otherwise. If you regard them as inherently untestable then ... Touche. |