This guy doesn't know how history works. Do you think you can go back and empirically verify if anything in the past occurred? I'll let you in a little secret - everything you know about the past that you didn't witness yourself, is based on conjecture and interpretation of circumstantial evidence and testimony.
Not everything is proven the same way. No amount of evidence about the past will bring you to absolute truth in the mathematical (deduction) or even empirical (induction) sense.
What you stated isn't correct because it suggests evidence isn't interpreted through a theoretical framework (paradigm) and could prove or disprove claims about the past on its own. There's no evidence outside of a theory (in philosophy of science this is known as theory ladennes).
This guy doesn't know how history works. Do you think you can go back and empirically verify if anything in the past occurred? I'll let you in a little secret - everything you know about the past that you didn't witness yourself, is based on conjecture and interpretation of circumstantial evidence and testimony.
So, what I stated was correct. Thanks for the support!
Not everything is proven the same way. No amount of evidence about the past will bring you to absolute truth in the mathematical (deduction) or even empirical (induction) sense. What you stated isn't correct because it suggests evidence isn't interpreted through a theoretical framework (paradigm) and could prove or disprove claims about the past on its own. There's no evidence outside of a theory (in philosophy of science this is known as theory ladennes).