Pannekoek’s theory of science

[twc]

Scientific FraudYes, but its fraud was detected, and exposed, by the very scientific enterprise it attempted to defraud.  Which was my point.  The scientific enterprise is self-correcting.It was unearthed as fraud by appeal to replicable experiment and, in this anti-Darwin case, not by appeal to inheritance theory, which was thereby delivered a near fatal blow of its duplicitous making — an own goal, on the grounds that it needed to be defended [could only be defended] fraudulently.[As for sociology, take the well-known case of Cyril Burt.  His fraudulent claims delivered his thesis its fatal blow, on the grounds that he was forced to resort to subterfuge in order to promulgate it.  There is no more compelling disproof than that!]Why Commit Scientific Fraud in the First Place?The only scientific question that needs to be answered here is — why did the scientific fraudsters feel compelled to resort to scientific fraud?Issues of prestige and funding aside, the main reason they were forced to resort to fraud was that they’d come horribly face-to-face with the inexorability of the scientific process — face-to-face with nature already exposing them.The scientific process had inexorably entered extreme doubts in their heads.  To prosecute their case further they attempted to bypass the scientific process.  They felt they had no choice but to delude themselves, for they can never delude nature.  Nature had turned them into fraudsters.In many ways, scientific fraud proves my case.  It is the very inexorability of the scientific process that produces its fraudulent casualties.  Those who attempt to buck nature get nature’s come-uppance.That has been my case for the integrity of the scientific process all along, and you have just proved it for me.My ResponseMy response, as I explained, has nothing to do with 19th century awesome-like respect for scientists, but has everything to do with respect for the hard won process of science that does deserve mankind’s respect in ways similar to the Party’s integrity deserves respect.I do not extend the same respect to other parties, nor to scientists who conduct scientific fraud.  But I comprehend human and social frailty, and pity it.I was merely standing up for a profession that you hold in supreme 21st century contempt — in line with the tabloid press and media.For you, the scientific enterprise is riddled with fraud, which the scientific enterprise is powerless to detect, expose and correct.

[twc]

Just looked up Burt in Wikipedia.  His defenders continue to dispute deliberate fraud, thereby disproving my claim that Burt's outing-as-a-fraud delivered a fatal blow to his ideas on the heritability of IQ — a perennial topic of perpetual fascination to the bourgeois mind, since they can rely on it to 'scientifically' legitimize their natural superiority.The wider implications of the Burt Affair appear in the Wikipedia article's conclusion:"In the broader sense, science, in general, and behavior genetics, in particular, were profoundly harmed by the Burt Affair, leading to an unjustified general rejection of genetic studies of intelligence and a drying up of funding for such studies."The whiff of scientific fraud is disastrous to the scientific enterprise that conducts it.  If only it were equally disastrous to those political enterprises that conduct it.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Positivism is the view that the only source of ideas and knowledge is experience.

I disagree with your definition of ‘positivism’, here, ALB. I think positivism goes further than ‘experience’, and claims that ‘experience’ provides ‘positive’ proof of ‘objective reality’. This claim can’t be true, because we know that science both makes mistakes and can only give a ‘partial truth’ of the ‘object’, at best.In its simplest form, it claims that the scientific method can’t be wrong. The twentieth century has put paid to that ideological claim!

As I said, I didn't want to get into argument about semantics, but I doubt that you will be able to bring forward someone calling themself a positivist who would hold the view you attribute above to positivism. To tell the truth, I don't understand what you mean by "'experience' provides 'positive' proof of 'objective reality'". If not, what does? Historically positivism arose as a criticism of the view that science discovers the world as it actually is and introduced the concept of partial, temporary truth.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

As someone once put it if not in so many words, sensations (or, rather, the outside world that gives rise to them in humans) have to precede thinking about them.

No, the ‘outside world’, or object, precedes ‘thinking’, but ‘sensations’ don’t necessarily. Have your ever ‘sensed’ Tasmania (or somewhere you haven’t been, if my example falls down by you actually having been to Tasmania!), or is just a theoretical construct in our minds, but which we can scientifically prove, if we wanted, by flying there? Theory precedes practice.

Actually, hearing and learning are "sensations" ! I think you using "sensations" to mean "facts". Anyway, you have conceded the point by saying that the outside world precedes thinking. Which makes you a materialist after all.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Anyway, you have conceded the point by saying that the outside world precedes thinking. Which makes you a materialist after all.

Well, since from my very first post I've argued that the 'object' exists outside of, and precedes, the process of cognition, your triumphal point about my 'concession' (sic) isn't very productive for a discussion of 288 posts, is it?What's being avoided is discussion of 'the process of cognition'.Why can't you describe your process of cognition, ALB?I accept object, subject and knowledge as separate entities in this process, and argue that the interaction between an active social subject and a pre-existing object produces knowledge.Thus, 'knowledge' can't be identical to 'object', because it's the product of an interaction with a subject which actively searches and selects from object, and with those materials builds a structure of knowledge.Sometimes the active social subject can be fallible, thus knowledge is untrue.This can be established by a later attempt at producing knowledge by another active social subject, employing a different theory, interacting with the objective world.But we can never reach a final, complete, absolute truth, because that would be to duplicate the object of cognition in every way, which is impossible.Finally, I'm not a 'materialist', I'm a 'historical materialist'.That's why I can explain the history of the production of knowledge, unlike those who see science as a discovery of the object, which Pannekoek also warns us against.IF HISTORICAL MATERIALIST             GOTO: ENDELSE              GOTO: POST1END"I accept Schaff's tripartite theory of cognition, of preexisting object interacting with active social subject to produce knowledge"

[LBird]

twc wrote:

For you [LBird], the scientific enterprise is riddled with fraud, which the scientific enterprise is powerless to detect, expose and correct.

LBird wrote:

Sometimes the active social subject can be fallible, thus knowledge is untrue.This can be established by a later attempt at producing knowledge by another active social subject, employing a different theory, interacting with the objective world.

twc, you seem to have the strange ability to 'write', but not have the usually concommitant ability to 'read'.As I never tire of saying, I'm attempting to support the 'scientific method', by explaining 'what' it actually is, rather than, as you seem to be trying to do, to defend the indefensible, that the activity of science can't be questioned, and to argue that those who do are trying to destroy science.We Communists have to defend science, on a basis that can be defended against the exposures of fraud, like Kammerer or Burt (and many others), and against the bourgeois authority of 'scientific Truth', which supposedly employs a method that produces a Truth which is final, and to which There Is No Alternative.Science, unlike the other bourgeois authority of The Market, can be saved.But we have to discuss it, and put science on a truly scientific footing which encompasses all scientific activity, from physics to sociology, through chemistry, biology, psychology, etc. Science is a human activity. We have to identify a Communist method, and reject the bourgeois method.The starting point, however, is to realise that science is a social activity, and is thus suffused with human ideology, biases, theories and, sometimes, outright individual or class-systematic fraud.In essense, science is a political activity, not a neutral method of discovery.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Well, since from my very first post I've argued that the 'object' exists outside of, and precedes, the process of cognition, your triumphal point about my 'concession' (sic) isn't very productive for a discussion of 288 posts, is it?

Of course I never really thought that you were an idealist. It was just that some of your phrases such as "thinking precedes sensation" and "theory precedes practice" left this open to doubt.

LBird wrote:

What's being avoided is discussion of 'the process of cognition'.Why can't you describe your process of cognition, ALB?

No it's not. I thought this had been settled. Anyway, again, here it is (from Pannekoek's 1937 article on "Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy"):

Quote:

The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream. All our observations of the surrounding world, all experiences of our lives are continually enriching the contents of our memories and our subconscious minds.The recurrence of nearly the same situation and the same experience leads to definite habits of action; these are accompanied by definite habits of thought. The frequent repetition of the same observed sequence of phenomena is retained in the mind and produces an expectation of the sequence. The rule that these phenomena are always connected in this way is then acted upon. But this rule – sometimes elevated to a law of nature – is a mental abstraction of a multitude of analogous phenomena, in which differences are neglected, and agreement emphasized. The names by which we denote definite similar parts of the world of phenomena indicate conceptions which likewise are formed by taking their common traits, the general character of the totality of these phenomena, and abstracting them from their differences. The endless diversity, the infinite plurality of all the unimportant, accidental traits, are neglected and the important, essential characteristics are preserved. Through their origin as habits of thought these concepts become fixed, crystallized, invariable; each advance in clarity of thinking consists in more exactly defining the concepts in terms of their properties, and in more exactly formulating the rules. The world of experience, however, is continually expanding and changing; our habits are disturbed and must be modified, and new concepts substituted for old ones. Meanings, definitions, scopes of concepts all shift and vary.[My emphasis]

[LBird]

Well, from what I can tell by the quote by Pannekoek you have provided, ALB, as the basis of your theory of cognition, it seems to agree with the one that I’ve put forward, based upon Schaff.I’ve argued that an active social subject interacts with a really-existing object, to produce knowledge, which is based upon, but not identical to, the object.As I think we both agree with a) the premise of the object being real and prior to cognition, and b) the premises that the subject is both social (not an isolated individual) and is active (not a passive registering instrument, but a searching and selective producer), we should clarify some issues about knowledge, to ensure we agree on the nature of this third entity, too.Of course, there is more to be said of both object and subject, where other posters might disagree with us (for example, some might argue that ‘real object’ doesn’t include ideas, but only things that can be ‘touched’ (ie. the ‘material’ or ‘matter’), or argue that the subject is an individual), but I think we agree on these two entities, so far.The part of the process of cognition that I think is worth clarifying is the issue of the ‘production of knowledge’. That is, it is a third entity which differs from the object of which it is knowledge of, and that it is ‘actively produced’, and so must contain elements of the producer.These, then, are my two questions:Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is a separate entity to ‘object’?Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is ‘produced’, rather than is an identical copy?Of course, if you think that I’ve posed those two questions in an unclear or unfair way, it’s open to you to discuss a ‘re-formulation’ of them! And if you disagree from the start that Pannekoek’s quote supports Schaff, then we can re-examine the quote in detail.

[Young Master Smeet]

twc wrote:

I read those sociologists as asserting that natural scientists lack scientific integrity.  This is I believe, for the reasons I gave, a quite undeserved charge against scientists of conscious human fraud.

But that's precisely what they aren't alleging.  Just as with, say, Chomsky's propaganda model, it works best when you assume that the scientist in question is arguing in good faith, from genuinely (however mistakenly held) opinions.  The point is that the funders back and promote science based on their interest, and a scientist whose methods and results please them will be rewarded, while those that don't will be cast into outer darkness.  There are other methods/faults.  Humans are political animals, and rivalries mean someone might attack a theory because they don't like who propounds it (or, conversely, support it because of the personal authority of the propounder).  No one has the time to carefully sift all research, we have to take a small amount of 'faith' in the practitioners, sometimes (often) that is misplaced.  Only after all that do we throw in conscious fraud as a real risk.

[LBird]

'Shame' as part of science? Who'd've thought it? How can an allegedly 'neutral method' bring 'shame', which is an all-too-human feeling?

A Nobel prize winner wrote:

“Another problem is that scientists begin to feel ashamed of negative results, which wasn’t the case a few years ago. Negative results are often as important as the positive results. The current system doesn’t tolerate failure."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dash-for-cash-is-stopping-science-in-its-tracks-claims-nobel-winner-8539744.htmlThese discoveries by scientists (and I mean the discovery of how shit capitalism is for science, not graphene) opens up the possibility of Communists providing an alternative approach. Only free access Communism can provide the socio-economic basis of anything approaching 'blue-skies research'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is a separate entity to ‘object’?

Yes (not sure about the word "entity", though). It can't be the same, if only because the "object", the passing world of ever-changing phenomena, is the whole universe of observable phenomena. "Knowledge" can only concern a selected part of it. But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge"  or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

LBird wrote:

Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is ‘produced’, rather than is an identical copy?

Yes. Everyone does these days, don't they? I don't know if this is relevant but there's an obituary into today's Times of David Hubel, described as "Nobel prizewinning neurophysiologist who first showed how our brains translate the signals from our eyes to give us vision". It says that his and fellow researcher Torsten Wiesel's work in the 1960s and 70s

Quote:

consigned to oblivion the popular notion that the brain received images from the eyes like film projected onto a screen.

I'm afraid I haven't read Schaff and so am not in a position to comment on whether or not his view is the same as Pannekoek's.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Now, we’re getting to the nub of the issue, aren’t we?Before I try to answer that essential question, though, I’d like to sum up where I think we are now about the ‘scientific method’, by the use of analogy.I’ve already posted my ‘NHS Computer System building process’ in an attempt to explain the actual cognitive process that science takes, in my opinion. I’ll post it again, for any readers who have missed (or, indeed, forgotten!) that post:

LBird, post #145, wrote:

In line with alanjjohnstone’s request for someone to try to ‘explain this thread to the rest of us in an easy to understand way so we know what it's all about’, and my suggestion that the world of computers might help, I’ll make an attempt to use the analogy of ‘building a computer system’. Of course, the problem with analogies is that, if they’re taken too literally, they obscure rather than illuminate the real issue. So, please bear this in mind, and ask questions if something seems to present a problem, rather than take something which is irrelevant to the explanation and erroneously try to follow that wrong turn and completely misunderstand.If we think of the process of building a computer system, say, for the NHS.The NHS really exists, prior to the attempt to build a computer system for it.The business analysts who ask questions of the doctors, nurses and administrators of the NHS to try to gain an understanding of the workings of the NHS, the system designers who interpret the analysis and produce a paper design of something which should work, the programmers who actively write the code following the design, and the testers who ensure that the code ‘works’ in line with the design, are all humans with pre-existing ideas, both of their own jobs, each others’ jobs, and the NHS itself. These humans have to extract relevant information from the NHS, actively design, write and use a plan reflecting the NHS.The end result of this human active process is a new product, an NHS Computer System, which in some way reflects the workings of the NHS, but is clearly not a ‘carbon copy’ of the NHS, but only a comprehensive attempt to replicate the features regarded as essential and relevant to the computer system.So, in terms of the separate entities of Schaff’s tripartite theory of cognition:the NHS is the ‘object’;the human analysts, designers, coders and testers, are the ‘subject’;the NHS Computer System is the ‘knowledge’.Is the System a ‘true’ reflection of the NHS? Yes, if it works as proposed.Is the System an identical copy of the NHS? Of course not. Another System could be built, produced by different analysts, designers, coders and testers, with different ideas about what the NHS is, and what purposes and interests the System should serve, and this second System can also be regarded as a ‘true reflection’ of the NHS, whilst still being different to the other ‘true reflection’ of the first System.As another example of this tripartite schema, perhaps posters remember DJP’s likening ‘nature’ (object) to ‘evidence’, and my response that ‘evidence’ instead was similar to ‘knowledge’ which had been selected from a ‘crime scene’. In this example, the ‘crime scene’ (object) forms the basis of an active examination by the legal offices (subject) who then build a case of evidence (knowledge).This is the cognitive method of science: scientists (subject) actively interrogate the universe (object) and employ the product (knowledge) to prove itself.Perhaps one could say that ‘knowledge’ is a representation accurate enough for the purposes of the producer. Thus, knowledge is formed by humans from the entity it represents for a reason, and the ability of the knowledge to be used for those reasons proves its accuracy.But… knowledge is not the object; knowledge is not an identical copy of object; knowledge is a selection made by an interested subject.I hope this all helps, comrades. I would appreciate some feedback from those readers who didn’t feel that they properly understood the more arcane parts of this thread, but that now they do (or don’t, as it may be).

We have here all the elements of the scientific method, and perhaps we could, too, liken it to a baker making pies.The constituents of the pie exist prior to the attempt to bake the pie, but the pie doesn’t emerge from the baker merely looking at the ingredients. The process requires the interaction of two things: the ingredients and an active human. The pie is created by the human working upon the ingredients. Thus, we have a third entity, which is an admixture of real ingredients and human creativity. The pie is based upon the real ingredients, but is not a mere ‘copy’ of the ingredients.It’s doesn’t take much imagination to realise, though, that the ingredients themselves don’t magically appear on the table: they are also selected, according to the tastes, abilities, training and culture of the baker: the selecting baker is an amalgam of individual and social elements. And furthermore, the process of baking a pie includes some accidental elements, like mood or an oven which had developed a dodgy thermostat. Finally, the same ingredients baked by another baker could result in a very different pie, or a different baker may choose slightly different ingredients for the same type of pie (better cuts of meat, salt, pepper, etc.).This pie-making method, I would argue, is far closer to the knowledge-making method of science than we are lead to believe, by those who would have us just blindly accept ‘science’ as an unquestionable authority for their deeds.Often, those who argue for the authority of the scientific method say that ‘replicability’ is a key element, but this often a gray area. Anyone who has studied the sciences in school will know that often an experiment is followed to the teacher’s precise instructions, but still doesn’t work. The pupil is then blamed, rather than encouraging the belief that science is more variable than the scientific authorities would like society to believe. And what counts as a ‘replica’? Anyway, for info:http://cogprints.org/7691/7/icmlws09.pdfSo, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.Thus, I’d argue that, for Communist society, the ‘judgment’ between ‘knowledge’ and ‘fantasy’ should be a democratic one. Of course, this is predicated upon a society where all productive activity, including scientific research and development, is under democratic control, and every member of humanity has open to them a scientific education up to post-PhD research, where to be a ‘scientist’ is to be taught to have the ability to explain their work in terms understandable by those affected by that science, where all scientific research papers are openly available to all, and where all children and taught to think critically about all affairs that affect their society.Or is there an arcane method, beyond the ken of ordinary folk, which can’t be explained by simple analogy, which must remain the concern of a scientific priesthood, which produces ‘Truth’, an eternal and socially-neutral truth?No, science is political, and we Communists must argue for its control by our society, just as we do for our economics and politics, through democratic means.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I’ve already posted my ‘NHS Computer System building process’ in an attempt to explain the actual cognitive process that science takes, in my opinion. I’ll post it again, for any readers who have missed (or, indeed, forgotten!) that post:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief. But a theory has to be able to make predictions of the future, an IT of the type you are describing does it system does not do that…Isn't the construction of theory more like map making.

Quote:

So, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.

But in communism there will be no proletariat LOL.

LBird wrote:

Thus, I’d argue that, for Communist society, the ‘judgment’ between ‘knowledge’ and ‘fantasy’ should be a democratic one. Of course, this is predicated upon a society where all productive activity, including scientific research and development, is under democratic control, and every member of humanity has open to them a scientific education up to post-PhD research, where to be a ‘scientist’ is to be taught to have the ability to explain their work in terms understandable by those affected by that science, where all scientific research papers are openly available to all, and where all children and taught to think critically about all affairs that affect their society.

Well in that case I vote for Father Christmas and levitating slippers; who's with me?I think the story about the bees and pesticides highlights the point very well. Society can construct whatever (partial) truths it like, through whatever means it chooses. But if these "truths" are not in tune with the (absolute) truth of nature, there will be a price to pay; bees will die out, building collapse and planes fall out of the sky.Schaffs "critical realism" as far as I can make out is an attempt to square positivism with the kind of cognitive relativism that is prevelant in much of the social sciences today, and it suffers for it.

LBird wrote:

Or is there an arcane method, beyond the ken of ordinary folk, which can’t be explained by simple analogy, which must remain the concern of a scientific priesthood, which produces ‘Truth’, an eternal and socially-neutral truth?

I don't think anyone actually does hold this belief that science produces the eternal truth, none of the physical scientists I have heard speak on the subject and not in the popular science publications…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief.

No, it describes a 'process'. A process of cognition.

DJP wrote:

But in communism there will be no proletariat LOL.

This is always the reply from someone who delights in ignoring the obvious.If I'd have said 'humanity' (clearly relating to classless communism), you (and them) would have said, 'but you're not dealing with the realities of class!'. I've heard it all before – it's a tactic to avoid answering questions, like 'what is your cognitive method?'.

DJP wrote:

Well in that case I vote for Father Christmas and levitating slippers; who's with me?

And this is your serious opinion of the problems we'll face after a successful communist revolution?Why not just say, 'workers are dickheads who can't be trusted, with property or science, and we'll have to control them, that is, property, science and workers'?

DJP wrote:

I think the story about the bees and pesticides highlights the point very well. Society can construct whatever (partial) truths it like, through whatever means it chooses. But if these "truths" are not in tune with the (absolute) truth of nature, there will be a price to pay; bees will die out, building collapse and planes fall out of the sky.

What about your 'levitating slippers', that you claim that you'll vote for, to use when the plane falls out of the sky.I suspect workers are brighter than that, and have a good idea of nature and its truths.

DJP wrote:

I don't think anyone actually does hold this belief that science produces the eternal truth, none of the physical scientists I have heard speak on the subject and not in the popular science publications.

Yet, when you're asked about the sun/earth relationship, you claim it as a universal truth? So, you, at least, do hold to this view?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief. But a theory has to be able to make predictions of the future, an IT of the type you are describing does it system does not do that…

If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?

LBird wrote:

In line with alanjjohnstone’s request for someone to try to ‘explain this thread to the rest of us in an easy to understand way so we know what it's all about’, and my suggestion that the world of computers might help, I’ll make an attempt to use the analogy of ‘building a computer system’. Of course, the problem with analogies is that, if they’re taken too literally, they obscure rather than illuminate the real issue. So, please bear this in mind, and ask questions if something seems to present a problem, rather than take something which is irrelevant to the explanation and erroneously try to follow that wrong turn and completely misunderstand.

The 'theory' that you mention, within this analogy, would be the theory that the computer system builders employ to enable them to build a computer system. So, for example, Jackson Structured Progamming might be used to design and write the code.The finished system represents 'knowledge', in this analogy.'Knowledge' is produced by the human social subject, which employs theories to help select and construct, from the pre-existing objective.On a later iteration of this eternal process, previously formed 'knowledge' can form the basis of future 'theory', to once again help to select (what is deemed) relevant from an overwhelming reality.If this still doesn't click, please ask, rather than assume. I'm trying to capture the nature of an interactive process.What's more, even when it 'clicks' (in the sense that posters come to understand the analogy), it still doesn't follow that one has to agree with it.But it's only by comrades getting to grips with this example, that they can hope to elaborate the different theory of cognition that they are, inescapably, employing for themselves.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?

Sorry I only have a certain limited amount of time and energy to spend on this.Besides, there's nothing in post 292 that I would disagree with.What I disagree with is the epistimological leap you make from this to your criterion of truth. Which would entail that creationism, Thor and phlogiston where once true.

[Author]

Posts