Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
This is a question about the extent of scientific knowledge. Tassman assumes going into this dispute that the only 'evidence' that could possibly matter to him would be scientific evidence. Do you see a problem with that assumption? So he's already assuming the outcome of the dispute from the beginning. He's 'rigging the game.' He cannot or will not see that point because he's already decided by fiat and without argument that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge. Perhaps you can see it? Like saying "In deciding the outcome of the game between our team and your team, we'll appoint the refs, because everybody knows that our team is the only arbiter of truth."
Comment