I have successfully eradicated the influences of the much acclaimed "Dr." P.V. Krishnan from my direct relatives, but much of my family remains under such dark influence, and seeing that many of the target's targets have hunted me down and started with their derogatory comments on my blog, I have decided to write a post. Sincere thanks to wdus for the support and the points.
Now! Getting back to Mr. P.V. Krishnan. He attempts at disproving and demeaning many aspects of science and scientific discoveries and developments. His newsletter "points out" the role of faith in science. This article mainly revolves around Mr. Krishnan critiquing the line "In science, everything is empirically verified; so there is no question of dogmatic faith in scientific methodology." He makes the readers believe him by telling them several times that a scientist, in proving a theory correct assumes full faith in his hypothesis, and perseveres around that faith, thus proving the role of faith.
We agree with you "Dr." P. We agree that faith is required in order for someone to prove something. But science, on its whole doesn't depend on this faith, it doesn't depend on these hypotheses, but on the proven ones, the ones that have been substantiated by math and science. So in reality, that line still holds full meaning even after "Dr." P. is done with his critique. He fails to prove his point. But here, I'd like to point out his genius in making his readers believe this.
The Journal doesn't explore science, but its author seems to be adamant on gaining consensus from the readers through manipulative words and other assertive techniques.
It's so on "Dr." P.
Stay Tuned.
Now! Getting back to Mr. P.V. Krishnan. He attempts at disproving and demeaning many aspects of science and scientific discoveries and developments. His newsletter "points out" the role of faith in science. This article mainly revolves around Mr. Krishnan critiquing the line "In science, everything is empirically verified; so there is no question of dogmatic faith in scientific methodology." He makes the readers believe him by telling them several times that a scientist, in proving a theory correct assumes full faith in his hypothesis, and perseveres around that faith, thus proving the role of faith.
We agree with you "Dr." P. We agree that faith is required in order for someone to prove something. But science, on its whole doesn't depend on this faith, it doesn't depend on these hypotheses, but on the proven ones, the ones that have been substantiated by math and science. So in reality, that line still holds full meaning even after "Dr." P. is done with his critique. He fails to prove his point. But here, I'd like to point out his genius in making his readers believe this.
The Journal doesn't explore science, but its author seems to be adamant on gaining consensus from the readers through manipulative words and other assertive techniques.
It's so on "Dr." P.
Stay Tuned.
