Science is supposed to simply be the organized, systematic search
for truth, regardless of the field in which it is practiced.
Observation perhaps, rather than Truth.
Nah - truth is precisely the word I was looking for...
Most if not all of the problems with respect to science stem from
becoming so personally invested in/attached to a belief in some
theory that one loses their objectivity...
.... Observations cannot be Objective.
Maybe not 100% perfectly objective, no...
We attempt to make them so by measuring. To measure we take
parameters, straight lines or whatever, or variables. But there are
unlimited variables and aspects in the big picture. And no thing is
separate from anything else.
True to an extent - but there is certainly such a thing as being
reasonably objective - ie, maintaining an open mind, and willing to look
at what the results of any endeavor tell you regardless of whether i=or
not it conflicts with pre-conceived notions...
I'll agree that no one can be 100% *wholly* objective, but there is a
huge difference (in the degree of objectivity) between:
1. a 'scientist' working for Devlin-McGregor desperately trying to
'prove' that their new drug cures liver disease when it in fact does the
exact opposite, and
2. a back-yard mechanic messing around with electromagnetism, hoping to
stumble on some newfangled form of energy...
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
