>Lots of things are obvious to lots of people and most of those things turn out to be false. Only rigorous justification advances our knowledge.
In hard sciences it does. There, there's no problem with "rigorous justification".
But overdoing "rigorous justification" can take our knowledge back instead of advancing it, in non hard science domains.
What I argue for here is the so-called European way of thinking about humanities and soft sciences, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model of quantification, hard proofs, reductionism and such. Letting "rigorous justification" overtake humanities and soft sciences can be detrimental to society, thinking and freedom. Moreover, despite pretending to be "objective", the Anglo-Saxon way takes for granted a whole ideological apparatus of its own (only except of being self-reflective, like the European, it naively assumes it is inevitable and natural).
>You would know all of this if you weren't a complete ignoramus.
Thanks for the personal insult. Am I to presume it reflects your deep studies and personal cultivation?
In hard sciences it does. There, there's no problem with "rigorous justification".
But overdoing "rigorous justification" can take our knowledge back instead of advancing it, in non hard science domains.
What I argue for here is the so-called European way of thinking about humanities and soft sciences, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model of quantification, hard proofs, reductionism and such. Letting "rigorous justification" overtake humanities and soft sciences can be detrimental to society, thinking and freedom. Moreover, despite pretending to be "objective", the Anglo-Saxon way takes for granted a whole ideological apparatus of its own (only except of being self-reflective, like the European, it naively assumes it is inevitable and natural).
>You would know all of this if you weren't a complete ignoramus.
Thanks for the personal insult. Am I to presume it reflects your deep studies and personal cultivation?