Nobody observes just what comes before their eyes. We have chosen what to see even before we see it. We construct our vision. We select and make. The geologist in the field takes his beliefs with him. He sees what he believes and sometimes he sees something he wish there was more evidence to help justify or refute (alter) his belief.
You just can't give up a faulty assumption, Cheerskep. WC --- On Fri, 12/19/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Science and Art > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 2:06 PM > Geoff -- I don't think you and I basically disagree. I > was trying to suggest > that activity most of us would be ready to call > "science" always originates > with observations -- but there's variation in > scientists' aims when they start > "looking". In other words, they don't always > have a hypothesis they are trying > to confirm. Sometimes the astronomer "idly" > scanning the skies, the geologist > or zoologist in the field, and others, are just observing > whatever comes under > their eyes. If they are of a certain turn of mind, they > can't help trying to > "account for" what they see. A > "pattern" may suggest a hypothesis, and then > the more rigid, "controlled" observation rules of > "scientific method" to test > the hypothesis kick in. But one way or another, > observations always come > first. Prior to every hypothesis there were observations -- > even in Einstein's > case. > > > ************** > One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, > Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
