IT’S A SHAME that Jim Watson’s evident sense of humour isn’t matched by his capacity to enter into intelligent debate (SNJ letters, July 22).
Some people use ‘wordiness’ to take the necessary space to construct a coherent argument.
Simply dismissing by definitional fiat notions like ‘post-modernism’ and ‘paradigm’ adds nothing to the debate and ducks all the arguments: and your intelligent readers will no doubt reach their own view on whose view of science is more convincing and conducive.
The straw-man accusation of ‘making stuff up’ has absolutely nothing to do with arguments about the unavoidably paradigm-bound nature of science.
Anyone with any acquaintance with scientific methodology and epistemology will know that the very notion of ‘evidence’ is highly problematic, and is routinely used and abused by scientists and researchers in highly dubious ways – and often with no awareness of the metaphysical assumptions about ‘reality’ that underpin and limit their findings and theories.
I just hope Mr Watson’s poor gnome doesn’t die of spiritual neglect.
I’m off now to read my copy of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – and the SNJ editor will doubtless be delighted to hear that my case rests here.
Dr Richard House
Stroud
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article