Post by KGrim on Dec 9, 2019 0:08:32 GMT
I was reading one of Jared Diamond's books when I can across this quote:
[Science is often misrepresented as 'the body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated experiments in the laboratory.' Actually, science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world.]
This struck a chord in me and I began to wonder What is reliable knowledge? How do we obtain it? We all have our own personal ways of acquiring knowledge, and we wouldn't have developed such methods of acquiring knowledge if it wasn't somewhat reliable. If it truly be the case that there are reliable ways of getting knowledge outside of laboratory experiments, wouldn't that make us to some degree just as much a scientist as the one who works in a laboratory? Is knowledge gained from the laboratory always more reliable than knowledge gained from other ways?
What are your thoughts?
[Science is often misrepresented as 'the body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated experiments in the laboratory.' Actually, science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world.]
This struck a chord in me and I began to wonder What is reliable knowledge? How do we obtain it? We all have our own personal ways of acquiring knowledge, and we wouldn't have developed such methods of acquiring knowledge if it wasn't somewhat reliable. If it truly be the case that there are reliable ways of getting knowledge outside of laboratory experiments, wouldn't that make us to some degree just as much a scientist as the one who works in a laboratory? Is knowledge gained from the laboratory always more reliable than knowledge gained from other ways?
What are your thoughts?