It can still be the case that a consensus has been well and properly challenged, and still remains unmoved because that challenge wasn’t backed by enough evidence or a firm enough logic to change any honest opinion. So we know when to dismiss you as no longer a part of any evidence-based concern for the truth.īut that’s the most general point. And what do you want? Knowledge, or dogma? Own it. Take that away, and you are no longer citing an expert opinion about what is actually known you are just counting up who backs what dogma regardless of what the evidence says. And this is true of any knowledge field, including history. The only thing that makes science respectable is that it is dedicated to changing its conclusions upon new evidence or argument. ![]() Because only a field that accepts that evidence can overturn a consensus has any claim to being a legitimate area of knowledge. First, of course, if a consensus can never be proved wrong, then it isn’t a consensus worth citing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |