Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5087030" data-attributes="member: 18280">It needs to be noted, however, that empirical (sensory) observation can occur (to the limits of instrumentation and to which sensory data can be trusted), no conclusion can be empirical.&nbsp; As was noted upthread, even the empirical observation itself is coloured per force by expectation and cultural conditioning, and sometimes in quite dramatic ways (ex. anatomical science over the last several hundred years has included observations that, in light of modern knowledge, are simply bizarre....by this, I mean anatomical drawings where organs are misplaced, or unrecognizable without the notes of the scientist making the observation, the womb in particular).Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact has an excellent discussion of this; again, far better than I can do.Overall, though, I would tend to agree with you here, and I would go so far as to say that some accepted scientific fields should, in fact, be considered para-sciences or mytho-sciences.&nbsp; In this event, a para-science would be a field where the scientific method is used to the extent possible, but there are acknowledged gaps in that extent possible (such as meteorology), and a mytho-science would be a field where the scientific method is at best tangential but allows for a working explaination whose truth value is far more questionable (such as non-pharm psychology).I would still insist, however, that empirical data cannot actually create a working map.&nbsp; The map is always the product of self-selected empirical data and pre-existing, subjective, expectations.&nbsp; And that empirical data is always anecdotal as a result.&nbsp; No matter how careful you think you are, you are not careful enough.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5087030, member: 18280"] It needs to be noted, however, that empirical (sensory) observation can occur (to the limits of instrumentation and to which sensory data can be trusted), no conclusion can be empirical. As was noted upthread, even the empirical observation itself is coloured [I]per force[/I] by expectation and cultural conditioning, and sometimes in quite dramatic ways (ex. anatomical science over the last several hundred years has included observations that, in light of modern knowledge, are simply bizarre....by this, I mean anatomical drawings where organs are misplaced, or unrecognizable without the notes of the scientist making the observation, the womb in particular). [I][B]Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact[/B][/I] has an excellent discussion of this; again, far better than I can do. Overall, though, I would tend to agree with you here, and I would go so far as to say that some accepted scientific fields should, in fact, be considered para-sciences or mytho-sciences. In this event, a para-science would be a field where the scientific method is used to the extent possible, but there are acknowledged gaps in that extent possible (such as meteorology), and a mytho-science would be a field where the scientific method is at best tangential but allows for a working explaination whose truth value is far more questionable (such as non-pharm psychology). I would still insist, however, that empirical data cannot actually create a working map. The map is always the product of self-selected empirical data and pre-existing, subjective, expectations. And that empirical data is always anecdotal as a result. No matter how careful you think you are, you are not careful enough. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification