Is there a difference between a theory and observational science of actually observing a chemistry experiment in live-time, in real-life, in-person, as it happens, in the flesh, not hypothetically, not theoretically, but simple observations LIVE, you know what I mean? How often do people contrast historical science with observational science?
RE: The End Of Reason: A Glimpse Behind The Curve
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The End Of Reason: A Glimpse Behind The Curve
Modern science has become so specialized and it requires so much time invested into it that ordinary people do not do it (and it would not be practical for the average Joe which is a unfortunate). Science and Engineering students on the other hand have to do it at least during their formation years (although not all institutions are at the same level).
The answer is yes, it is done, all the time, every year, around the world. In a more practical way every time that a plane takes off and lands is a testament that what we know about thermodinamics, friction, fluid dinamics, electricity, etc is accurate to an acceptable degree; every time that a transistor in your smart phone works proves that quantum tunneling is an accurate description of what happens at the subatomic level (to name a couple of examples). But the body of knowledge is so vast that no human being can test every theory out there and we have to defer to specialist even within the same fields.
A healthy dose of sckepticism about what we know is always good. Otherwise we would stagnate.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But there is a difference between what we know about our world and what we guess concerning things that happened long ago. For example, the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We can only draw conclusions based on the evidence and the body of knowledge that we have. The time scales are not important as everything that we see ocurrs in the past, and I mean everything since the speed of light has a limit, even the events that happen in front of our eyes took place a few nano seconds before we perceive them.
That is why science is the best tool to acquire knowledge, it gives us a way of constantly improving our understanding as long as we remind ourselves that new discoveries might change how we view the world and we don't cling to outdated ideas.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There are strong differences between observing things in the recent past, and ongoing, in a continual process, the scientific process, and simply looking at something from long ago that you were not there to see in the process. The two are two different types of sciences. They're not the same in a variety of ways. That should be the emphasis. Of course, everything is in the past. But that is not the difference between the two sciences. The difference is that one is past-tense while the other is past-tense continuous. The second one is ongoing in the moment as the experiments and observations are taken place in real-time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would say the two are constantly feeding into each other, so for instance, if I might come up with a theory that 10,000 years ago, when an ancient tribe performed a particular dance, it rained.
Then you come along and make lots of current observations about rainfall, after a while you report that you cannot find any modern incidences of a dance-rain connection.
What's more you report that you have discovered that precipitation has a lot to do with rain, and so therefore my theory breaks down. There might still be some people that agree with me, however your theory gains much more traction because it is backed up by observational evidence.
In the real world this happens all the time, so for instance Albert Einstein gave us the mathematics for discovering gravitational waves, however it took decades of observation and advances in technology before we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So we are constantly comparing historical science with current observational science.
Cg
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Would you know how many times it rained in that ancient tribe without a scroll, a book, markings on the wall, or something that would say how many times it rained long ago? My question is all about trying to measure what we did not see ourselves, what we did not personally observed, seen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, in this case we look at rock formations, plant growth and a whole host of other things to which I'm not an expert.
Are you perhaps alluding to the Sphinx riddle?
I know that most scientists date the Sphinx at roughly the same time as the pyramids, however others like Graham Hancock date it much earlier because of evidence he says he has found regarding flooding/rainfall.
Cg
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit