Much that we perceive readily deceives.
Evidence is not the one and only piece to the scientific puzzle. Observation is theory-laden.
Often times evidence comes in the form of data. But how is the data interpreted? Are the proper graphs drawn? What are the underlying explanations that have allowed the sundry observations?
Prior art, i.e. historical intelligence and research, must be considered and weighed against the current evidence. Prior theories, explanations, understandings.
Observations of the manifestations of the data in nature will drive one towards inevitable questions. What might one infer given what we’ve known, in light of this new information?
What of the criticism? Allowing others to scrutinize, question further, point out flies in the ointment must also be a part of the process of understanding reality.
Unfortunately, those that tout "based on the evidence" are again hoisting their authority figure upon a pedestal for worship. Science is not wholly, and solely, based on the evidence. Rather, it requires people, with creative, critical minds, to interpret, and provide explanations of the data.
And evidence is misused to justify, and support, people's notions of reality. Rather than use evidence to prop up one's theory, the role of evidence is to falsify explanations, in other words, contradict a theory. The evidence is used to challenge the theory, in essence, to criticize it by showing how it is not possible, given the evidence.
It is far too easy to demand evidence for a theory's propositions creating a bias. It's far more difficult, and superior, to use evidence to contradict, and falsify a theory's propositions.
Evidence is not the one and only piece to the scientific puzzle. Observation is theory-laden.
Often times evidence comes in the form of data. But how is the data interpreted? Are the proper graphs drawn? What are the underlying explanations that have allowed the sundry observations?
Prior art, i.e. historical intelligence and research, must be considered and weighed against the current evidence. Prior theories, explanations, understandings.
Observations of the manifestations of the data in nature will drive one towards inevitable questions. What might one infer given what we’ve known, in light of this new information?
What of the criticism? Allowing others to scrutinize, question further, point out flies in the ointment must also be a part of the process of understanding reality.
Unfortunately, those that tout "based on the evidence" are again hoisting their authority figure upon a pedestal for worship. Science is not wholly, and solely, based on the evidence. Rather, it requires people, with creative, critical minds, to interpret, and provide explanations of the data.
And evidence is misused to justify, and support, people's notions of reality. Rather than use evidence to prop up one's theory, the role of evidence is to falsify explanations, in other words, contradict a theory. The evidence is used to challenge the theory, in essence, to criticize it by showing how it is not possible, given the evidence.
It is far too easy to demand evidence for a theory's propositions creating a bias. It's far more difficult, and superior, to use evidence to contradict, and falsify a theory's propositions.