jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Have you a link to said scientific proof > please, > > How could there be such a link? > > In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say > 'there is proof that' with no references to > authority because authority (in the sense here of > specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been > deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty' > cannot live with this. The fallibility of > knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word > 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth > certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away > in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential > property derivable from deductive systems (such as > mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a > totality for ANY system either in completeness or > consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the > fallible empirically oriented messy organisational > languages of science - these are always open to > being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to > new readings of the empirical) rather than > post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known' > (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any > philosopher of science currently recognised in the > academy as a philosopher). Precis: Everything jaywalker posts is rubbish.