Of course you’re right Scott… but not all STEM knowledge is ‘straight’ and not all ‘curvy’ knowledge is in the ‘soft’ sciences. You’ll notice that the post says stuff like “in much of the STEM realm”… I might not have made this abundantly clear… but I didn’t say that STEM = Straight… otherwise i would have used the word STEM and not straight. I believe you’ve read my paper on knowledge Scott… I would certainly NOT say that ‘fit to empirical verifiability’ is a ‘kind’ of knowledge. What I’m saying is that the argument that is often used by George is that “you want solid research on things that are empirically verifiable.” and that “things that are empirically verifiable advance” it’s those two advancement and the need for 100% correctness that mean we’re talking about the parts of STEM knowledge that involve events that are not up to debate. Plane fall out of sky.

Please come back and read it again. If you have the same critique… we’ll try ‘er again… ’cause i’m pretty sure i agree with you on this point… and maybe not some others further down.