In Reply to: Boston Globe: "Science closes in on mystery." YES! posted by clarkjohnsen on December 31, 2005 at 09:00:28:
This fundamental concept of scientific inquiry seems to be the root of ongoing argument between the objectivists and subjectivists. To the objectivist (and scientist), conclusions based on impressionable and emotional human perception and is not reliable. If someone makes a wild product, scientific or hearing claim that’s either new or too incredible to believe, independent VERIFICATION is required (blind listening test, scientific peer review, etc.).On the hand the subjectivist considers human perception and emotion to be infallible, so observation is the SAME as proof. If someone simply THINKS they hear a system improvement with a tiny jar of stones sitting on the floor – that means the incredible product must work and yet another amazing scientific invention from the amazing vendor.
Fortunately for at least 600 years now scientists have understood this fundamental distinction. That’s why we use antibiotics instead of drinking lead, no longer blame invisible evil demons for mental disorders and have such great sounding audio systems today!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Some inmates don’t understand the difference between “observation†and “proof†- Caymus 15:32:39 12/31/05 (22)
- Would that you knew what you were talking about - Norm 18:13:41 12/31/05 (21)
- "I don't need or care to prove I am right to you or any other fool." REPEAT -- - clarkjohnsen 16:36:16 01/03/06 (0)
- Confusing “hypothesis†and “observation†with “proof� - Caymus 19:47:35 12/31/05 (19)
- The data test your hypothesis. - Norm 20:23:38 12/31/05 (18)
- Are y'all still on about "invalid DBT"? - Silver Eared John 22:14:13 12/31/05 (17)
- No, we are talking about invalid measurements of concepts. Sorry to confuse you. nt - Norm 07:20:38 01/01/06 (16)
- Ducking, are we? - Silver Eared John 21:03:22 01/01/06 (15)
- Just knowledge. nt - Norm 07:07:47 01/02/06 (14)
- Still unclear, I see... - Silver Eared John 10:23:54 01/03/06 (13)
- Still unclear evidentally - Norm 17:41:17 01/03/06 (12)
- And still unclear... - Silver Eared John 17:51:34 01/03/06 (11)
- Re: And still unclear... - townie 00:41:59 01/04/06 (10)
- At least you’ve confirmed your preference is influenced by non-audible features - Caymus 14:59:18 01/04/06 (7)
- Re: At least you’ve confirmed your preference is influenced by non-audible features - townie 09:06:43 01/05/06 (2)
- Re: At least you’ve confirmed your preference is influenced by non-audible features - Caymus 12:43:59 01/05/06 (1)
- Re: At least you’ve confirmed your preference is influenced by non-audible features - townie 22:20:05 01/05/06 (0)
- "If the test was done correctly" This is a pretty big if. - Norm 17:36:57 01/04/06 (3)
- How can you verify… - Caymus 17:53:24 01/04/06 (2)
- Ultimately, we cannot - Norm 06:53:47 01/05/06 (1)
- If y'all the consumer, does it matter if y'all happy? - Silver Eared John 01:17:55 01/06/06 (0)
- Well, y'all, we agree on that... - Silver Eared John 10:40:26 01/04/06 (1)