• presoak@lazysoci.alOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Telling me what you think about what somebody else thinks is basically the opposite of direct observation.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yes. And yet staring at twenty years of them reporting the weather would not at all improve my understanding of global warming. Especially if that observation was stretched out over twenty years.

      Accurately recorded and identified specific observations are necessary for scientific progress, but their mere collection is not sufficient for understanding.

      Science requires us to speculate, predict, test, and refine. And if all we do is observe without even having made a prediction, we’re not even testing.

      • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Nobody said anything about only observing. And understanding does not require that we manufacture hypothesis or model. You are thinking science, which is another thing. I am thinking mere empiricism. After that there are multiple options. But yes, empirical basis is key.