Assume that a group ofthe world's greatest scientists are relaxing on a fishing trip in a small boat on the lake at Loch Ness, Scotland. To appreciate this limitation consider the following situation. Without this contact control there can be no science. The scientist must have contact control with the object of his inquiry either in the sense of being able to manipulate occurrences of the phenomenon to be studied or in the lesser sense of being able to reliably predict the conditions under which it can be passively observed. This requirement might be called the "contact control principle". Thus there can be no scientific knowledge about things which cannot be observed in a repeated and controlled manner. Science itself is limited in the sense thai it requires repeated, controlled observation. The second relates to the limitations of the individuals who conduct scientific investigations. The first relates to the limits of science itself. There are two basic limitations in the scientific enterprise. though it may enhance, improve and even correct them. Wise human decisions will of course take into account all pertinent facts provided by science, but nevertheless the prime focus for the decision maker will be man's "ordinary vision-" Science viewed in this way does not really threaten the domains of common sense, art, religion, etc. The limitations, uncertainties, pitfalls inherent in man as man are still irrevocably and inevitably present in all his inquiries including those which we call scientific.
So it is with science and the view of the world it supplies. No one would suggest either that all the telescopes should be destroyed or that everyone all the time should walk around with telescopic glasses. Telescopic visions complements and enriches normal vision it doesn't replace ft. It enables us to see things that would otherwise go completely unnoticed. It is marvelous for certain kinds of jobs. The telescopic view stands for that view provided by science. One might illustrate with an analogy of normal vision as compared to the view of things through a powerful telescope. For one thing there are some things that scientific observation is well suited for and some things it isn't. When science is viewed as basically involving a "closer look" some of its characteristics become apparent. "Scientific" observation is an extension and systematization of normal everyday observation. All of us engage in careful observation at various times. More importantly, this definition puts scientific endeavor clearly on a continuum with other human endeavors. It is also clear that under the Kaplan definition, psychology could qualify as a science, Observational astronomy for example is normally thought of as science yet in this field controlled experiments are seldom possible. More conservative definitions which limit the term "science" to research involving controlled manipulation and experimentation do not achieve this match. For one thing it covers the domain of activities in disciplines as diverse as chemistry and astronomy which are normally called scientific.
There are a number of advantages of this relatively simple definition. It is this deliberateness and control of the process of observation that is distinctive of science. Scientific observation is deliberate search, carried out with care and forethought, as contrasted with the casual and largely passive perceptions of everyday life. Stated in its most basic form science might be defined as a "closer and more careful look." Abraham Kaplan has defined it as follows: In a word it is actually something quite simple.
0 kommentar(er)
