Justin's approach takes as its starting point the mutual alienation of man from man. The question for him is why does he believe what scientists say, not what is the source of the knowledge. Why we believe scientists is a secondary question of psychology. What is the source of scientific knowledge is what is at issue. The source of scientific knowledge is its object, nature.
In message <F234CE7DH9kwy15jfXX0000a0b8 at hotmail.com>, Justin Schwartz
<jkschw at hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>The earth was not flat when scientists thought it was, it was round. The
>>consensus caught up with the truth of the matter, it did not create it.
>
>
>Of course I agree with this. But the reason we have to believe, most of us,
>that the earth is round, is that that's these cientific consensus; and it's
>the consensus that makes for, indeed constitutes, scienmtific respectbility.
>I am a scientific realist of a rather strong sort, but I am a pragmatist in
>epistemolofy.
>
>--jks
>________________________________________________________________________________
>_____
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
-- James Heartfield