Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.
|
Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.
11-07-2012, 10:20 PM
Threaded Mode