SCIENCE
Can you briefly explain the difference between common logic and the scientific method?
no i can't, but think about this though - if people's combined brain power and belief actually do make up reality clusters, then how can the scientific method even be effectively employed anymore ... in other words, if Max Tegmark is correct in his mathematical assumptions and the answer to every single question is yes, no, maybe, uh-huh, what, and probably, great zero non zero etc, then what good does the scientific method really do us anymore?
I believe that unlike the scientific method, common logic is not based on experiments but rather built on experiences. Thus, common logic is often subjective, whereas the scientific method is objective.
Scientific method is (should be) more positive, it should give you the hint what to do next. In a common logic, you can only make some conclusions without any idea where to go. Science gives you direction.
IF something looks feasible and possible, it doesn't mean that it is soo. If you believe in something it does not prove it.
In Science you have to find the prove, the answer to the question why.
Not much difference in my opinion.
Common logic is often described as the metaphysics of the masses. Perhaps? WHAT the take home lesson is herein, is that science is done by two primary methods, the empirical and logical method(s). Within its common rigors of its phased methodology of observation, hypothesis and testing(s) while experience soon informs the good scientist that the most effective scientific method integrates all methods seamlessly, within the cognitive and sustainable conscious faculty(s), as the transformaing agent, of the common science practice modality. This is since fundammetnal science, is done with basic research(s) as is a living systems, with a past, present and future that continues, so that as this continuum sustains, in its laborers efforts, so that we continue so see this effort(s) continue and to bear the fruit of more comprehensive answers, some of which are later in respect of more mature developments, from generation to generation of laborers (scientists) in His vineyard, as the metaphpor continues, so too must our science differentiate between ealy and later experts, in a field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFUli7Ne4o4 Slide Show
http://lnk.ms/GbQyj" Subscribe to my YouYube channel   | | |
Something that seems logical to just about anyone is common logic. Something that can be discerned by those who are used to critical scientific thinking is above common logic (and can often contradict it).
The tricky thing is that "common logic" usually turns out to not be as common as everyone things. "Common logic" usually means "my logic" and what we perceive as common sense usually is heavily loaded with personal, cultural, ideological bias. The entire foundation of the scientific method consists of the goal to eliminate such biases, so that everyone using the same method and possessing the same skills can replicate and verify of falsify a given experiment or hypothesis. Ironically it would seem that the scientific method is the true "common logic" while common logic is not what it claims to be.
I believe common logic to involve observing cause and effect relationships in everyday life. How we interpret these relationships may not always be correct however, due to the limits of our senses. The scientific method is a rigorous means by which we can ask and attempt to answer questions about the world around us. Scientists record their work in detail so that other scientists may review the work to see if they come to the same conclusions.
Science is ultimately a collaborative work involving generations of people all over the world to refine the answers. There are almost no "done deals" in science; as new methodologies and new research come to light, theories can be further refined or discarded. Science is a work in progress. This is very exciting to me, to be part of the quest for human understanding of the universe around us.
my own personal opinion is that a whole bunch of scientific research at the moment is down to playing with statistics and finding the right analysis that would make the results look like they SHOULD. So i refuse to comment both the common logic and the scientific method.
I think the cartoon in the following link explains everything:
http://xkcd.com/242/
The scientific method is reductionist
The scientific method follows agreements and standards in order to consider knowledge production as something valid. On the other hand, common logic tends to create knowledge with less restrictive methods of evaluation and validation. Even though, I consider both science and common logic as versions of social activity.
Common logic to me is mostly using "Instincts" because it's not always proven.
Scientific method gives a clear explanation of how something came about using the outcome of experiments.
Common Logic is absolutely subjective and depends on the person's feelings, experiences, culture etc, and the scientific method is objective based on facts and a series of steps to get an answer that will give no ambiguous results
The common logic should be established one after having many experiences to do try-and-error in the scientific methods. |
| 1 | 2 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>
| |
|
99700 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS