{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
由Lies编辑：
1/19/2013 10:32:41 PM
3
It's certainly easy to criticize dogma, but I'm not sure why you brought a priori into this. Science is not a priori, though I doubt you would argue that this implies scientific knowledge "is therefore not true because it can be lost." Many sciences use math, but mathematical truths do not form the basis of our scientific understanding. Your point about lost knowledge being rediscovered -- as opposed to a story of a talking snake being lost forever -- is indeed largely true, but this isn't because the knowledge is a priori; it's because it's either an a priori [i]or[/i] empirical truth.
English
-
[quote]My line of reasoning is that science while empirical is rutted in a priori truth or at least strongly supported by one and thus is largely recoverable.[/quote] But it's not. It is recoverable, but it's not because it's a priori. You're not going to derive general relativity from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC]ZFC[/url]. You won't discover quantum mechanics; you won't discover evolution; you won't discover dinosaurs existed, etc. Again, I agree that science and math are recoverable, but it's not because a priori truths have anything to do with it. Truth itself is the part that matters.
