What we've got here..., is failure to communicate.
By what, is truth determined, Paul? Agreement? Tacit or explicit? Do all need to agree or is "more likely than not" sufficient?
Paul, what would you do if indeed facts were pliable? What would you do if you knew your beloved immutable scientific facts were littered, littered I scream, with pliability.
Did you not see my previous post Paul?
Truth is relative Paul and there aint a dang thing you can do about it. You can "sky is falling" claim that Western Civilization's days are numbered but that won't change the cold hard slap of relativism...Paul.
And he's gonna use gender to weasel into Postmodernism! Hoo boy. "Supplant Empiricism?" We don't need gender to supplant empiricism, empiricism did that all by itself. But let us not forget the atrocities of WWII what with all of that empiricist glory.
I can hear Thomas Dolby now: She blinded me, WITH SCIENCE! [literally]
Gender, Paul, is an abstraction; never was it universally recognized as immutable scientific fact. Even Plato would throw up in his mouth with that bullshit. But that is irrelevant.
I see through you Paul. I know what you are after. I can feel you chasing it, peering around corners, tailing with highest of hopes.
You want certainty Paul. You want a fixed point from which to navigate. Did you honestly think you were going to find it with gender?
Ah nuance and bi-valence and shades and spectrum and degrees how they are loathed. But the Pauls '83 of the world don't realize that the immutable is a vacuum of a different sort, but nonetheless a vacuum that nature abhors.
p.s.,
And did we really need to write:
insidious postmodern mindset that is beguiling the current generation
