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

If eveyone is a leader, who is left following?

Either the world is full of imperfections or you're really good at finding fault in everything

Want less, fulfilled sooner