The Limitations of Observation: A Scientific Perspective

[drag]

Greetings Sigma Greyhamn !

Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
As I understand it, the scientific method has
four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon
or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain
the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the
existence of other phenomena, or to predict
quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the
predictions by several independent experimenters
and properly performed experiments.

Is this correct? Does this definition meet with
everyone in the discussions approval?

Yes, I agree.
I included points 1 and 2, but forgot about
points 3 and 4 (I was kin'na tired and all so
I didn't fully think it through - excuses,
excuses... ).

Anyway, what now ?
I personally see no assumptions present.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Sigma Greyhamn]

Well...

I agree that 1 and 2 don't have implicit assumptions (beyond the defintions, which are obvious and not something I'm willing to debate, though some wankers would)

I'll need agreement on the whole description to proceed however.

 

[drag]

Again, I see no problem with that scientific
method part.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That's a negative I'm afraid.
You're assuming that there are things
independent from human senses. Not to mention
the fact that when you speak of a particular
tool you're making a great deal more assumptions.

Of course I understand that human can mess with observations, and scientists do this all the time (actually mostly their students who perform actual measurements - they can screw everything which possibly can be screwed ).

What I am trying to say is that the less subjective are measurements (the less human senses are involved), the better. That is why we have scientists (not just each and any passerby) to take measurements - people who study how to measure, estimate errors, and who practice long and build more and more accurate devices to take less and less subjective measurements.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course I understand that human can mess with
observations, and scientists do this all the time
(actually mostly their students who perform actual
measurements - they can screw everything which
possibly can be screwed ).

That is not what I meant and I believe you
knew that...

You're assuming that obsevation is necessarily
a true indication of reality. You are making
assumptions instead of practicing pure science
and that's your mistake. Further more you're
making further absolute assumptions about the
measuring devices specificly. There isn't even
a clear definition of "real" existence or "unreal"
existence, it's just a semantic perspective.

Live long and prosper.