From the BlogSubscribe Now

Science VS Experience, The Lab VS Observation: Tacit VS Explicit

You have probably already realized that I’ve created an all out, no holds barred false duality slug fest, with my title to this post above. And you’d be right. The problem isn’t this simple. The issue isn’t this plain. The solution isn’t this formulaic. The process isn’t this black and white. My post probably isn’t right or wrong.

What this piece of writing is NOT, is an anti-science tirade. No. I am not part of the scientism band-wagon. I believe science is truly the best “systematic” conduit to some sort of truth that we have.

The reason being is that I believe science, the meme, the idea, the way of thinking, not only evolves, but some of its constraints, over time, alter with improvements in analysis, observation and methodology. Methodology and modality extracted and guided by the powers of observation and the forces of experience that mold perception and create a framework for understanding.

Because astronomers can carry out the two fundamental activities that, jointly considered, truly characterize a science: systematic observations and the construction and testing of hypotheses.- Massimo

Of course there is a way to create synchrony and di


–          Bias Isn’t Always Wrong – Biases are Clues

–          Deduction/Induction



There is no such thing as a Scientific Mind. Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics. What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common? Obligative scientists must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead. — Peter Medawar


To begin with, let us clear the field from a common misunderstanding about what it means to do science, a misconception that is unfortunately widespread even among scientists: one does not need experiments to do science. While this claim may sound strange and counterintuitive at first, a moment’s reflection will show that it is obviously true: astronomers do not conduct experiments, and yet we think of astronomy as solidly situated within the sciences, not the humanities or the pseudosciences. Why?