sure.
2007-04-30 15:46:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Loathing 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. But it is also observing different dimensions and a universal hum, with those, there are changes, although slight. There are some things people are gifted to see or hear, but unfortunately, not always readily observable to the 5 senses. If I had not observed what I did, I would be an atheist. I wish others would see something or hear something. That is, hopefully, not very mentally ill. I did post an article that showed that folks who did hear voices were automatically diagnosed as mentally. When the psychological experiment was let out to other psychiatric researchers they were angry. So, it is the degree of what some hear and see as opposed to observing. Yes, science does have instances such as initial power for a big bang, or dimensions, and what is in them, they currently cannot explain. Social science wise, and so forth, does have various data that supports, at least qualitatively, that there is more to the world then what we can see or understand. Some explanations are very untenable scientifically.......
2007-04-30 15:58:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by nativearchdoc 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, science is about understanding EVERYTHING.
The notion that science does not concern itself with first causes -- that it leaves the field to theology or metaphysics, and confines itself to mere effects -- this notion has no support in the plain facts. If it could, science would explain the origin of life on earth at once -- and there is every reason to believe that it will do so on some not too remote tomorrow. To argue that gaps in knowledge which will confront the seeker must be filled, not by patient inquiry, but by intuition or revelation, is simply to give ignorance a gratuitous and preposterous dignity.
-- H L Mencken (1930)
2007-04-30 15:51:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by thewolfskoll 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Science is a backformed noun.
The activities a scientific mind does are
1. Delimiting the "area" or topic one is going to study and dissect.
2. Observation and dissection of the area under study.
3. Hypothesis--attempted extrapolation or drawing a conclusion from a series of facts as to how they came to be as they are.
4. Definition attempt based on the 5--6 prioritized inner workings of anything.
5. Uses of the definitions of the "normative" functions, states of matter, etc, concerning anything.
Science refers to the method of thinking--scientific not appearance-based.
It refers to each fo the actions done.
It refers to the resulting knowledge once it has been checked back against reality and an "hypothesis' can be verified as a working law of matter.
And science refers to the attempt to extend knowledge by technology, insight, imagination, invention and evaluation.
2007-04-30 15:59:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Robert David M 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would narrow it down to observing what already exists ....the understanding has always been elusive. The fact is in most scientific studies (concerning virtually any subject) we are relegated to the current "best guess" on how things work.....so understanding? nope.
2007-04-30 15:58:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Right - Robert D....!
Supposed to be - but then "evolution scientists" have made up a lot of non existent transitional forms they continue to practice pseudo science on.
A theory is not a fact no matter how much you want it to be or make up pretty morphing videos on boys.
2007-05-01 01:33:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by cordsoforion 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, science observe things via the five senses...
2007-04-30 15:48:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Maikeru 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Science is a discipline, like any other. There is science in heaven, believe it or not. There is textiles, there is foods, there is a giant library, and unbelievable gardens. What is on Earth has been in Heaven first, my friend. They probably do it with perfect method up there, though. For us, science is still discovery, groping, ... for them, it is already in its perfect form
2007-04-30 15:49:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Shinigami 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Science has to have something that already exists..to work on. Science makes wonderful discoveries..but it always has to have something to work from.
2007-04-30 15:51:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most certainly. I posit that science is the one and only acceptable method for accurately describing the natural world.
2007-04-30 16:16:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by SomeGuy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Its one of the purposes of science. Do they understand everything? No. Are they increasing our knowledge? Yes.
2007-04-30 15:50:14
·
answer #11
·
answered by in a handbasket 6
·
2⤊
0⤋