The problem is that they take a self-contained system like science, which has its own assumptions (everyone makes assumptions) and its own self-contained system, claims that the assumptions are wrong, and then tries to make science encompass a different set of assumptions. A better way to proceed would be to create their own system of knowledge based on their own set of assumptions (you would have to find some other name), and then run from there to show people what you want to do. Trying to change a fundamental basis of the system without either showing that it's wrong or that there is another way to produce valuable results that is contradictory is a bit flawed simply in a philosophical matter.
What makes me suspicious, of course, is a number of statements that indicate that some of the critics do not actually understand what is being criticized.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-30 03:41 am (UTC)The problem is that they take a self-contained system like science, which has its own assumptions (everyone makes assumptions) and its own self-contained system, claims that the assumptions are wrong, and then tries to make science encompass a different set of assumptions. A better way to proceed would be to create their own system of knowledge based on their own set of assumptions (you would have to find some other name), and then run from there to show people what you want to do. Trying to change a fundamental basis of the system without either showing that it's wrong or that there is another way to produce valuable results that is contradictory is a bit flawed simply in a philosophical matter.
What makes me suspicious, of course, is a number of statements that indicate that some of the critics do not actually understand what is being criticized.