Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:08:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
743 times
|
| |
|
|
brickhead wrote:
> But don't you differentiate between the fact as such and the assumptions and conclusions you draw from it? To my understanding,
> THERE ARE objective facts in history (see above).
I think the main point here is that while some things can be objectively stated, their implications may be subject to historical
context. For example, say 100 years from now, it would be true to say that Elizabeth II and Henry VIII were both heads of the
monarchy in England, yet the implications of each statement are very different. While perhaps appearing similar on the surface,
the post of "monarch" is very different for each time - thus Elizabeth II having someone's head removed from their shoulders
would have a different meaning from Henry behaving similarly.
Similarly, the post of "president" can have differing meanings in different cultures at the same time - US President vs. French
President vs. President of Manilla.
Science (tm) attempts to remove such subjectivity by calling a spade a spade at all times and in all places.
Jennifer Clark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: G8CJyH.BCq@lugnet.com... (...) But don't you differentiate between the fact as such and the assumptions and conclusions you draw from it? To my understanding, THERE ARE objective facts (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
