and saying "objectivity" is a problem in and of itself, so as to mean that you know what it is.
How does science "not come close" if you claim you don't truly know what omniscience is? How do you know how "close' you can be?
its like wondering in the dark. do you know how close you are to the other wall or not?
DONT SPEAK ON THINGS YOU DONT KNOW...REMEMBER?
I wear it well.
You claim pursuing objectiviy is pointless, yet for some reason you have a problem with the improving of accuracy.
Because theres no other means, that we know of, to validate or confirm a claim.
Nikka, you aren't arguing any point that I disagree with. I graduate with a BA in Psych and took tons of STAT classes, I'm no idiot. I didn't say objectivity is pointless, only flawed, like everything else in reality. It's circular and hard to interpret because we are in the dark, do you not agree? I didn't say we shouldn't improve on the accuracy or I wouldn't have spent a few years of my life in a fukkin science lab.