• Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 days ago

    Yes but have you considered this facebook post my friend shared that contradicts that?

    Facts dont care about your feelings, libt*rd

  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    23 days ago

    If understanding was caused by direct observation we wouldnt have local weather-persons who doubt global warming.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      23 days ago

      Telling me what you think about what somebody else thinks is basically the opposite of direct observation.

      • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Yes. And yet staring at twenty years of them reporting the weather would not at all improve my understanding of global warming. Especially if that observation was stretched out over twenty years.

        Accurately recorded and identified specific observations are necessary for scientific progress, but their mere collection is not sufficient for understanding.

        Science requires us to speculate, predict, test, and refine. And if all we do is observe without even having made a prediction, we’re not even testing.

        • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Nobody said anything about only observing. And understanding does not require that we manufacture hypothesis or model. You are thinking science, which is another thing. I am thinking mere empiricism. After that there are multiple options. But yes, empirical basis is key.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    23 days ago

    Unless you are someone who learns by doing.

    Watching someone cut up a plant of wood and mount it to a wall to be a shelf is all well and good, but some people will learn more by actually doing it.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      Or even EMPIRICISM, BITCHES.

      Because you don’t even need to craft a model at this point. And you can employ all kinds of fuzzy judgements that don’t encode into language, like vibe and aesthetic.

      Language really is a crude, shallow and convention-bound thing.

        • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          I see your point. There are varying degrees of experience. And participating or doing can definitely lead to the greater form. But the way you’re using the terms seems arbitrary.

          • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            How is it arbitrary? You said that people learn best by observing. I disagree. People learn best by doing, not just seeing. You’re the one who has apparently conflated seeing and doing. Observation and experience are distinct things

            • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              No actually I didn’t say that.

              Forget it.

              I think that this conversation you’re having here is 99% with yourself.