CH: Metaphysics
claims necessary truth.
Not exact matches
Accordingly, its
necessary conditions include equal freedom for all participants to advance and contest any
claim and the arguments for it; the absence of internal coercion in the form of strategic activity or, stated positively, uncompromised commitment on the part of all participants to seek the
truth; and the absence of external coercion that might influence the acceptance or contestation of
claims (cf. Habermas, Theory 25; Habermas, Justification 31).
I have also tried to give more attention in several essays and one book (Plurality and Ambiguity) to the kind of public criteria
necessary to adjudicate the inevitable clashes between the
claims to meaning and
truth in both situation and tradition.
It must be stressed, however, that it is not
necessary to refute Darwinism on scientific grounds in order to maintain the religious
truth claims expressed in the biblical account of history: e.g., God's sovereignty and creative initiative, man's free will, his unique dignity in the universe, and his supernatural end.
If Christian
truth claims are to be readmitted to public discourse, it is
necessary to overcome the artificial dichotomies between sacred and secular, between faith and reason.
Quite apart from the
claim that this proposition stands as an axiom or
necessary truth — a
claim quite contested — that «axiom» he mentioned is nowhere contained in the text of the First Amendment.
Lomborg
claims in his rebuttal that «Holdren could find little but a badly translated word and a
necessary specification for nuclear energy production in this chapter».8 Actually, as my original critique indicated to the extent practical in the space available, and as Lomborgs rebuttal and this response make even plainer, his energy chapter is so permeated with misunderstandings, misreadings, misrepresentations, and blunders of other sorts that it can not be considered a positive contribution to public or policy - maker understanding, notwithstanding its managing to get right a few (already well known)
truths about the subject.
As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is
necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the
truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind
claims, (d) making specious
claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding
claims about climate change by holding conferences in which
claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.