Knowledge stems from observation

[Narz]

The scientific method takes theories and tests them via experimentation and observation. Study and observation is what makes the science, theory without science is religion.

Ideas begin in the mind first but without testing your ideas you merely have ideas not knowledge.

 

[Hygro]

Duh..

 

[luiz]

Well yes.
But a lot of stuff, particular on social sciences, has never been tested and was essentially made up by people in their minds. From Marxism to Freudian psychology, there are loads of pseudoscience out there. Usually masked with tons of jargon and complicated words with the goal of obfuscating the fact that they have no scientific basis whatsoever to stand on.

 

[Hygro]

People can intuit good leads with a scientific mentality, and it’s still not knowledge even if whole fields spring about it.

And some theories can rest upon other theories without any testing and observation and be knowledge to the best of our ability.

And not all observation is felicitous, even if we might wager it’s still more felicitous than the errant minds of a would be theorizer (trippin).

 

[rah]

Most of the social sciences are just a classier version of religions and are equally as real.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The scientific method takes theories and tests them via experimentation and observation. Study and observation is what makes the science, theory without science is religion.

Ideas begin in the mind first but without testing your ideas you merely have ideas not knowledge.

Do you mean the scientific method takes hypotheses and tests them via experimentation and observation? And if everything works out, then they become theories?

I've run across so many people on comment boards around the internet who don't know the difference and they sneer that something is "only" a theory.

Whereupon I dare them to step off a tall building without a parachute and pray that they won't splat when they land on the ground.

 

[Lexicus]

Pretending that observations can stand on their own without theory to interpret them is what I used to do when I was a teenager.

 

[Hygro]

Pretending that observations can stand on their own without theory to interpret them is what I used to do when I was a teenager.

S T R A W B O I I

 

[Lexicus]

S T R A W B O I I

Go back to the original thread where we were having this discussion and you'll see it's anything but a strawman. The context of this is that @Narz said something kind of stupid, @Traitorfish called him on it, then rather than making an argument Narz decided to say things like "a five-year-old could see it, it's obvious" and claiming he wasn't theorizing, just talking common sense.

The background of this thread is very much the claim that observation stands on its own, without any theorizing or fancy thinkin' necessary.

 

[Hygro]

I read it. You, our forest spirit, and TF we’re all missing Narz’s point and using your education privilege to mask it.

 

[Lexicus]

I read it. You, our forest spirit, and TF we’re all missing Narz’s point and using your education privilege to mask it.

Yeah...no

 

[Broken_Erika]

I ate my forest spirit. It was yummy.

 

[Hygro]

Yeah...no

Lol...

 

[miaasma]

oh jesus christ

 

[Ryika]

Ideas begin in the mind first but without testing your ideas you merely have ideas not knowledge.

That's not true, ideas begin with observation of reality.

 

[miaasma]

I read it. You, our forest spirit, and TF we’re all missing Narz’s point and using your education privilege to mask it.

could you please wear the appropriate attire when making posts like this

 

[Farm Boy]

Did he offend an article of doctrine? Trying to track down what pricked the euphoria.

 

[red_elk]

I read it. You, our forest spirit, and TF we’re all missing Narz’s point and using your education privilege to mask it.

Begun typing the question "who is our forest spirit", then got it
What was the discussion about?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Aren't there things in sciences like physics that aren't observable but can be 'proven' through mathematics? Also, does 'observation' in this context include the observation of effects by which we infer causes? I'm thinking, for example, of the super-small particles that we cannot actually see, but whose action on other particles we can see. Neutrinos? Is that neutrinos? Wasn't the big superconducting supercollider in Europe used for an experiment along those lines?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

S T R A W B O I I

Is this the latest internet fad? I've seen something like this on CFC three times in as many days. It's as vacuous as most internet fads.