| But you would have to argue it from a position that gave a privilegde to some for of knowledge over another -- which is contrary to cognitive relativism.
For something to be (absolutely) false, you need a set of criteria against which falsity is determined (eg the scientific method uses empirical data to falsify hypotheses). These criteria are then considered more important that any other criteria that consider those falsities to be false. This is a form of priviledge which requires a postive choice, even if you frame it negatively. (The privledged criteria by which you judge some things absolutely false are positive selected). To me, that's a cop out on a relativist position -- only taking it so far.
The scientific method is not generally considered relativist. Popper (who probably has the best articulation of contemporary philosophy of science) was not trying to make science a reletivistic enterprise. He bounded science (to the material realm, leaving out metaphysical and moral judgements); but he privledged its claimn to knowledge within the material realm -- something I tend to agree with. |