(1) whereas science offers us a powerful tool for the discovery of truth, science is not the only, or even necessarily the best way that humans come to know reality.
(2) the existence of ‘‘the’’ scientific method (understood as above) is a myth. Science has neither the priority in the discovery of truth, nor the unity and cohesiveness of one identifiable method.
On the following statement I would like to know if there is a way around this. Can we approach an experiment or observations objectivity.
(3) One consequence of the hermeneutic (narrative or interpretive science) circle is that it puts to rest the claim that it is possible to approach an object in a neutral manner, open to all possibilities. Rather, we always come to our object of study with a set of prejudgments: an idea of what the problem is, what type of information we are looking for, and what will count as an answer.
1) I think science, in essence, is the way we percieve reality. Science is about discovery and that is how we learn new things about the world. Learning about reality is about individual perception and science embodies the same principles.
ReplyDelete2)I do believe, in some ways, the scientific method is a myth. You can't always approach every situation with the same way of solving things. Science is about trial and error and the scientific method doesn't always account for human error.
3) I think it is truly imperative to approach all situations in an objective manner. Like I mentioned, science is about trial and error and you don't always keep an open mind when you know what to expect from an experiment. Science can be ojective when you don't allow yourself to predict what is going to happen. When you do that, you allow for new discoveries to be made.
And Alyssa Dolney too :)
Delete