Sorry,
I was getting a little frustrated with you.
I now understand the problem, thanks.
I do not set out to be hard to understand.
Yes there was only one question.
AND yes, inferring logical conclusions from a premise is not in itself science. Yes, I agree.
What you need to see from me is the discussion by Kant applied to anagenesis. I can do this either in this thread or in the one undermy name. It will not happen today. Thank you for answering. As I just answered, I DO know what is missing. Thanks again.
As for the OP...
Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific?
It might simply indicate "prejudice" as opposed to a lack of objectivity. I can expand on that later.
quote:
Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms?
(where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of)
It may if I fullfill my answer to your first question. That will come later but given that Mick had you specify a difference of description vs prescription I think that no matter what it will NOT become a "contradiction" in logical terms. The descriptive result for prejudicial prejudgments is different is not the same as prescripting the determination. This assumes the reflexion is finished. It may not be. More later on this as well.
In a very general sense I agree with you sans Mick's post that XXXXScience is predeterminative but then we would need a scientific establishment that really is open to the differing personal horizons and differing lengths of reflective judgment periods. I did not expereicne this. Creationism tends to extend this non-determinative quality.
In the best of all possible worlds I would agree with you. I do not live in such.
Edited by Brad McFall, : subtitle