Historical arguments are just a matter of presentation, as opposed to concrete scientific inquiry?
by Rick on Friday, June 19th, 2009 | 2 Comments
Wise Idiot asked:
Semantic can say went to occur 500 miles from where live thats basically the untenable nature of arguments.
Kansieo.com
Semantic can say went to occur 500 miles from where live thats basically the untenable nature of arguments.
Kansieo.com
Related posts:
- is Hammas the most dangerous terrorist organization in world? Self-adjoint Operator asked: For our president should be the nazi...
- Can you define what so-called “matter” is without going in semantic circles Cognitive Dissident ÜberGadfly asked: The concept of matter is no...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Kansieo.com
What you say is true to a point and people will believe what they want to hear.
However, suppose you are driving down a highway and there is a car in front of you. The temperature is near freezing and it is raining. It’s common knowledge that ice will for on bridges before it does on roads. The car in front of you goes across a bridge and start to slide sideways. You can conclude by all of the above that there is ice on the bridge……yet you have no scientific proof. You came to the conclusion based on items known.
The point is…..drawing conclusions based on known items while not scientific in the purest sense is reasonable.
Create a video blog…instantly.
I would not consider the “bathroom caused a car crash” to be a historical argument; it is more like the “Butterfly Effect.” However, that said, historical arguments may be made without invoking science, but which will be backed up by science, or have been backed up by science.
E.g.:
“The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
“Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.”
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 86.
That is a historical arguement. Socialists may argue it, saying such things as “no government in history has practiced collectivism the way it OUGHT to be done; if they had, none of that would be true.”
But the scientific fact is, up to this point IT IS TRUE. So science backs the historical argument, even though science was not used to prove it.