Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a
philosophical
point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree
that
objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been voted out of science."
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than most scientists do.
This is a classic battle between two claimants to infallibility.
Ec