(August 16, 2015 at 12:33 am)AFTT47 Wrote:(August 16, 2015 at 12:14 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...how exactly did scientists ever bypass their own human biases in order to come up with an objective representation of the world?
By following the system. Furthermore, there are multiple scientists following the system and they keep each other honest. If one scientist falls prey to his/her limitations, another (perhaps with different biases and limitations) will expose it. In the end, the truth wins and that's it. Does it really matter if the truth is something you can intuitively understand? You should only need to understand the scientific method and the reliability of it.
I can see how you could be right, in a sense. So you're saying it's not that important that I intuitively understand every bit of information and how it would play out in the scenario described? But how could I ever hope to understand physics then?... You see, my problem is not not trusting the info, it's not comprehending it. What use would I have for it anyway, me personally, if I didn't even get what it's driving at?
