Data are a higher form of
truth than theory.
Not exact matches
That is, past
theories, now «refuted» by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the
truth than what we think now.
if your
theory of no god were
truth, then we are a bunch of living garbage and deserve to be nuked to ashes, birds would have more right to exist
than us, but since god does exist life really has a purpose, unlike your view of life which to me seems like an empty story.
It is the weaknesses endemic to narrative that may cause some to question its sufficiency: the rejection of the philosophical supports needed to sustain Christian
truth, an emphasis on divine agency entailing a disdain for apologetics, and a turn to intratextual (rather
than correspondence)
theories of
truth.
Right from the start, Darwin's
theory was about much more
than scientific
truth.
The opposition to the correspondence
theory of
truth has been the opposition to the idea that correspondence could be anything more
than the most suitable tale, with suitability determined by the context in which it is told.
On the other hand a Metro report has rubbished this
theory and claimed that the problems of Arsenal are much bigger
than missing just one player and that the Spaniard is not the sort to help the Gunners to win games, so which is closer to the
truth?
To arrive at a universal
truth regarding human development and behavior, Bowlby felt it was necessary to utilize several fields of scientific inquiry rather
than rely on existing
theories of psychoanalysis alone.
This
theory was widely accepted as
truth for decades until some research was done over the years that showed so long as you had a meal within a few hours of training, you would be just fine, and that total protein intake over the course of the day mattered more
than when you had protein intake.
The mean - spirited tone of script feels like it's coming from a position of a person with an axe to grind rather
than a historian searching for the
truth or offering a alternative
theory of events.
Suddenly, we seem to live in a time dominated by «fake news», «alternative facts», conspiracy
theories, scepticism of scientific research, partial accounts parading as «the real
truth which has hitherto been concealed from us, the people», revolts against allegedly smug academic elites and distant political elites — a time where YouTube videos claiming research into climate change to be a scam get far more viewers
than videos presenting the science of climate change.
Modern solar system dynamics seeks to integrate and develop solar
theory in conjunction with the obvious
truths about the interactions in the solar system, rather
than studying the Sun in isolation from them.
It overturns all this obfuscatory BS about «post-normal» science, those models are the best we have, all measurements involve
theory, the philosophy of science which has more variations even
than the climate models, and all the other crap pro-CAGW» ers throw in the road to
truth.
this is a
theory for slow coach philosophers that's been seized upon by ever innovative denialists who know full well that their notable deficiency in the whole
truth / integrity department could be more
than compensated for by their prodigious advantage when it comes to demagoguery and public relations.
Al Gore cited that same tobacco company memo in his 2006 «An Inconvenient
Truth» movie, right before he spelled out the «reposition global warming as
theory rather
than fact» phrase full screen.