Post

Meritorious arcadia wrote:

Actually, re-reading your comment I think we do agree more than I initially realized. You seem to still believe that facts and truth exist which is inconsistent with a full/complete application of of post-modernism that was described in my text books and in the article I referenced.

There are people who fully apply post-modernism and deny the existence of any objective facts or truths. I don’t think you’re one of them given that you said: “the "fact" is something that could be universally generalized and results are possible to be accurately quantitatively reproduced (and expected)“

So I think our disagreement was based more on operating from different definitions rather than actually disagreeing.

Sorry that I'm answering this late, but - yes, I believe that there are facts where the constant variables are as well. When there are not, there is just knowledge.

Theoretically we could apply postmodernism to a full-scale of human understanding of the World and say that even for example physics could be interpreted many ways since there could be flaws and misleading inputs within our own senses... alternate realities.... or even a simulation paradox like the movie "Matrix".... but then we would be making relativization of the constant variables as well... and that in my opinion is just overabstracted philosophy since you would be mostly generating questions with usage of deep and unclear metaphysics and not with the methodology and epistemology. This form of postmodernism is not the scientific paradigma anymore, and I "just" accept the paradigma version of postmodernism.