Skip to main content

What does it say for the science we know when our senses can be deceived?

The structure here sets up a general statement or belief for a question or questioning and provides a factual statement (related or not) to set up the question. This is tool is used more as a general tool to produce a reaction which the speaker can then use to gauge the audience later.
This statement itself is deeper than the usual ones I bring out. Think about it. The scientific method is partly based on testing a hypothesis and observing and recording the results. But if our senses can be fooled (and the numerous visual trickery images on the net is a testament to this), what does it say for our observations? Is our science limited to our senses? Is it limited to what our equipment translates what we cannot sense into something we can? Even then, do we lose some data in the process. How does this relate to the concept of a personal reality? If a person is never explained basic scientific concepts and observes them in action, do they come out with the same conclusions?


Popular posts from this blog

A great master begins with the mastery of one

Sort of the opposite of the phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none."
Was "Journey of Jack of all Trades begins with the mastery one."

People who don't want to try something because they are afraid they are not good at it, will always wait. But when is someone good at it the first time, all the time?
So try. Be good at it. Repeat.

Idiots must understand the difference between being righteous and being right.

Being righteous sometime means being wrong sometime, too. Being right means you are right all the time. Being Right doesn't mean you are right, just as being Left doesn't mean you're wrong.Being a right Idiot means being right. Being a Right Idiot means your twice it An idiot doesn't know how they got it right. An righteous idiot doesn't know how.