What are you talking about?? observations are part and parcel processes of the Scientific Methods.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:01 pmVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:40 am From the common and conventional perspective, yes, what constitutes a scientific fact lies outside the scientific method.
However, I presumed you are familiar with the Modern Physics of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics where the scientific facts and its referent CANNOT be independent of the Scientific Method, e.g.
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.
Observation exists outside the scientific method as well considering much of what is observed does not apply the scientific method. Factuality thus lies outside the method.
I had stated the common and conventional perspectives do take it that the referents and objects of factuality are external to the methodology.
But the degree of veracity from common and conventional methodology are not of the highest precision, i.e. crude.
Therefore you are using lower grade knowledge in trying to counter my points on the Scientific Methods which is the most reliable methodology for knowledge.
Again, what are you talking about??Wave function collapse
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation". [/list]
In Modern Physics there is also no absolute reality but rather reality is dependent on the Model used to interact with it.
And models of observation, such as analysis as the break down of a phenomenon to its constituent parts, exist outside of the method.
You are off point here.
I am talking about observations in Quantum Mechanics where the resultant referent cannot be totally independent of observations and the methodology, thus the experimenters.
Again you are very lost.
There is no model that determines the scientific method, except the scientific method which paradoxically is not applied to itself.
- Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model. The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
The determination of the reliability of the Scientific method or any method of knowledge is based on its degree of its structure and processes that generate objectivity, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, peer review and other criteria.
Your above response is like a malfunctioned robot which goes cranky and generates all sorts of nonsensical answers and responses.