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.
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.
If understanding was caused by direct observation we wouldnt have local weather-persons who doubt global warming.
Telling me what you think about what somebody else thinks is basically the opposite of direct observation.
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.
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.