(December 19, 2011 at 1:49 am)Rhythm Wrote: You've confused yourself on a couple of counts at the end here. Conducting science based upon observation often does not lead to the result which we hope for, and science does not create fixed results that merely confirm what we perceive to exist. You've presented a false dichotomy. The aether has been missing for some time now, as a single example that elaborates on both of these points..lol. Many experiments were conducted to prove that the aether existed. They didn't give the results hoped for even though we were looking to confirm what we already perceived to exist. As a side note, there were experiments that seemed to imply that it did exist(some performed by researchers in an attempt to discredit the notion). Imagine their surprise. Ultimately the aether fell by the wayside due to experimentation, observation, and peer review.
So you would say that perception gives way to science which has the ability to negate our perception? While affirming that belief and science cannot be made equivalent or used synonymously.
In other words, science is a method which has no need to directly affect the way in which we interact with the world, unlike a belief. Perception precedes science, and it is science which explains our perception. Is that a correct summation of what you stated? If not, please feel free to correct me. I'm just trying to simplify what you said overall in regards to the question.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
