Villain Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Is science as a knowledge source seen as something free from human interpretation? Is it assumed that the results presented by humans are not influenced by humans? And if humans are part of science, how much so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Your question does not make sense. Science is a method... A process for putting ideas to the test, continually refining them to better represent the actual cosmos, and rejecting or discarding those shown to be false, inaccurate, or without utility. It is not a source of knowledge like some sort of encyclopedia. While certain results may be open to different interpretations, the process itself is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Your question does not make sense. Science is a method... A process for putting ideas to the test, continually refining them to better represent the actual cosmos, and rejecting or discarding those shown to be false, inaccurate, or without utility. It is not a source of knowledge like some sort of encyclopedia. While certain results may be open to different interpretations, the process itself is not. I apologise for the mistake. What do you call the collective outcomes of science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Well that really depends on the nature of the research to which the scientific method is being applied. However, at a very abstract level one could say that the outcome is an improved and enriched understanding over what we knew before we conducted the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 I see the method of science as a way of broadening the human knowledge of 'science'. The incorrectly used 'science' is what I'm referring to in the first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That still does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ok, the method is the explanation and therefore the knowledge. Would that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ok, the method is the explanation and therefore the knowledge. Would that make sense? Sorry, but no. That`s still completely nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Is science as a knowledge source seen as something free from human interpretation? Is it assumed that the results presented by humans are not influenced by humans? And if humans are part of science, how much so? It kind of reminds me of "if a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound?" Assuming that the tree isn't alive and is just some object which is in-capable of measuring itself in any way, they answer is undefined, because without an actual observer we could only "assume" that it does based on our own understanding of physics which only mathematically predicts that it "should" cause vibrations in the air if those equations do in fact 100% model the circumstances of reality that they claim to. Though if you literally mean without humans, the answer would still be yes because there are other living things to sense the universe. Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now