Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-09 Thread Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
; just as vital to admit that things are not certain and > > evidence still is missing, > > > In other words, I think we are on the same page. > > > Best wishes > > Billy R. > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- > *From:*

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-09 Thread Billy Rojas
oups.com Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct? Hi Billy, Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved objectivity.” E Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B.

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-09 Thread Centroids
;> >> >> From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM >> To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com >> Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas >> Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Object

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-08 Thread Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
--- > *From:* Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM > *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com > *Cc:* Centroids; Billy Rojas > *Subject:* Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct? > > Billy Rojas, > I l

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-08 Thread Billy Rojas
From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct? Billy Ro

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

2018-03-08 Thread Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
Billy Rojas, I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your name. On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> wrote: > *Ernie:* > > There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is > > no point in getting