In Reply to: "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:29:22:
There are two entirely different contexts for revision dependent upon the criteria one chooses. The legitimate criteria is based upon "new verifiable evidence" while doctrinaire revisionism is based upon reinterpreting evidence or "creating" new evidence to fit preconceived notions in order to alter the established facts and rewrite history/science.>>> "Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising it's ideas, to arrive at better truth." <<<
"Better truth" or more factually accurate? ;^)
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. - Audiophilander 14:02:44 08/20/02 (6)
- "doctrinaire revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 07:26:16 08/21/02 (3)
- So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? - Audiophilander 08:13:59 08/21/02 (2)
- Wrong. - clarkjohnsen 08:23:00 08/21/02 (1)
- Well, I have seen the film and who knows what higher truth means from your perspective. - Audiophilander 10:24:03 08/21/02 (0)
- Very nicely said... - Mrs. Piggy 19:10:31 08/20/02 (0)