you're moving from the scientific method onto perception here. That's got nothing to do with confirmed observations of facts in science.
Theory or Fact?
- Thread starter edgray
- Start date
you're moving from the scientific method onto perception here. That's got nothing to do with confirmed observations of facts in science.
and people do this everyday, through out life, on many different levels
and also they have to be a) replicable and b) testable.
but that's not the scientific method. The scientific method is distinctly different from human perception of the world.
am i? it doesnt?
so if the scientific community as a whole agrees upon something without seeing it or conducting their own research/experiments ....it shouldn't be believed?
Scientists use the scientific method to confirm other people's confirmations.
They check methodology used, view all the data, and then they can agree on the confirmation. It needs to be able to reproduced.
so if something happens once but cant be reproduced it isnt fact? or doesn't exist?
do you agree that for most perception is reality?
Every hypothesis is supposed to be written clearly enough to be tested. The study itself should be clear enough so that it can be replicated.
Researchers used operational definitions so they know what to look for and what to classify each event that they observe. There are standardised measures in place so that everyone who is observing something all agree that THAT thing is the thing being observed.
Explanations however, go BEYOND what is observable. That's where theory is developed.
What you're confusing is, the study itself should be able to be replicated, from the types of participants, equipment, method, stimulus, etc. The results may vary because the participants will be different, it really all depends.
Scientific observations are different to non-scientific observations. Scientific observations are only fact when the observation matches the operational definition, and it is agreed upon by more than one of the observers.
In day-to-day life, when someone says "So and so did this" and we believe their observations, that's not scientific.
Researchers used operational definitions so they know what to look for and what to classify each event that they observe. There are standardised measures in place so that everyone who is observing something all agree that THAT thing is the thing being observed.
Explanations however, go BEYOND what is observable. That's where theory is developed.
What you're confusing is, the study itself should be able to be replicated, from the types of participants, equipment, method, stimulus, etc. The results may vary because the participants will be different, it really all depends.
Scientific observations are different to non-scientific observations. Scientific observations are only fact when the observation matches the operational definition, and it is agreed upon by more than one of the observers.
In day-to-day life, when someone says "So and so did this" and we believe their observations, that's not scientific.
There are different perspectives of reality. Realism, relativism...and everyone has observer bias. But science uses measures to reduce observer bias. Like double-blind controls or some shite.
I don't know what you're trying to get at anyway.
I don't know what you're trying to get at anyway.
i am not confusing anything...i am playing "devils advocate" as it were
again if somone chooses to believe something is fact whether their is evidence or not they will...people will believe what they want...perception is reality to most ....and that is scientific fact
I give up.
Nothing is ever 100% certain, we all know. But science is the best we have. Facts are facts, they are observed by one person at least. If you don't trust them well then good for you.
Nothing is ever 100% certain, we all know. But science is the best we have. Facts are facts, they are observed by one person at least. If you don't trust them well then good for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
That hasn't been true since the 16th century.
im sorry kimmy,..i was just being a pain
i do not disavow science,..i personally believe in it, when it is purely science and doesn't have other underlying motives or agendas,..and what the world perceives as facts and what the actual facts are usually vary in life and in science.
if 65+% of the population believed in blue unicorns there would be somone somwhere touting some sort of data proving their existence with a large following behind them
if 65+% of the population believe that an invisible man lives in the sky and has power over everything and everyone..then there would be someone somewhere touting somesort of proof based on evidence.....wait a second
I'm not sure why you're laughing, it's a movement called Rationalism, and it's about 400-500 years old.
i was laughing because the person i was thinking of using as an example...you kind of indirectly called him rational....i think others would find it amusing as well
you'll have to give an example here.
But yes basically that's the case. If something was observed once, and it couldn't be confirmed by any other method of testing, it most likely didn't happen.
There is a good reason for this. The natural world is made up of laws and systems that behave in a certain way. We know, for example, the chemical composition of water, and it's dymanics. We can predict where its going to go and what its going to do in every situation.
If someone says the water in front of them one day just jumped into the sky and flew off, chances are they were on something pretty strong. We know this because it goes against the laws of that substance's behaviour and the laws of the environment around it.
Yes for a lot of people it is, and this is simply one of the biggest failures of the human race. Our perception sucks. Our perception leads to subjectivity and takes you away from truth.
That's a very bad example. If by example there was water in front of someone and a large enough dust devil came upon it it's very possible for it to jump into the sky and disappear. For every occurrence there are always explanations even if something happens just once. Sometimes they just take a bit longer to prove to the skeptics.
but the phenomena you describe could a) be explained and b) be replicable under the right conditions.
I'd be very interested if someone could come up with a scientific fact that only occurred once.