Does personal point of veiw contribute in aquiring knowledge or hinder?

[garazdawi]

Now this is the thread were you can insult all that science ever has been about, to strive to eliminate the personal point of view of the researches. This is what all science through out the world try to do, but is this really a good thing to strive after? Is it not the scientists pov (point of view) which creates all new ideas? I'm asking all of those out here who have a philisophical vein in their neck, what do you think is the answere to this question?

[frogus]

If a scientist is of the opinion that creation-theory is better than evolutionary theory, and goes on to prove the six-day creation, it becomes irrelevent what his point of view was before, if his discovery is irrefutable (sp?).

If he cannot prove the creation theory, then his opinion is not important from a scientific perspective. The only times in which the opinions of scientists are important are when they make bogus claims etc. for media interest and monetary gain, as is suspected of the man behind the new 'clone births'.

As to the specific question 'does personal point of view contribute to aquiring knowledge or hinder it?', I think the only real answer is that one's perconceived opinion will tend to be helpful to one's aquisition of knowledge if it is correct, but not helpful if it is false.

This isn't a useful or interesting point though as one doesn't know if one's opinion on a subject is correct or false until a discovery is made to prove or disprove it.

[garazdawi]

Quote:

Originally posted by frogus This isn't a useful or interesting point though as one doesn't know if one's opinion on a subject is correct or false until a discovery is made to prove or disprove it.

True but wouldn't you say that the new original idea that a scientist develops have to come out of his own pov in the beginning and then move on to become something that he can prove using as unbiased methods as (s)he can.....?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by garazdawi Now this is the thread were you can insult all that science ever has been about, to strive to eliminate the personal point of view of the researches. This is what all science through out the world try to do, but is this really a good thing to strive after? Is it not the scientists pov (point of view) which creates all new ideas?

I think you're confusing two separate issues: 1) the measurement of quantifiable results, and 2) the intellectual/intuitional creation of ideas. The former either involves the eliminiation of POV or (in the case of the social sciences) the quantification of it, while the latter depends upon POV. The former is a pratical task. The latter involves the creation of an idea. There's really no grounds for combining the two, IMO.

[frogus]

Although scientists have to think of their ideas, the scientific facts do not come from a scientist's mind, they come from reality.

A scientist cannot simply think something up and then go about proving it with unbiased means.

But I see what you mean - an true idea will tend to be proved only if someone believes it already...this is why I said that correct opinions are valuable to scientific development while wrong ones are not - but because the truth of a matter can come out of any research into it, whatever the researcher's opinion, this is not universally true...

[garazdawi]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable I think you're confusing two separate issues: 1) the measurement of quantifiable results, and 2) the intellectual/intuitional creation of ideas. The former either involves the eliminiation of POV or (in the case of the social sciences) the quantification of it, while the latter depends upon POV. The former is a pratical task. The latter involves the creation of an idea. There's really no grounds for combining the two, IMO.

These are the things that I usualy fail to see.... Infact this the reason why I at all posted this topic, to get some ideas of what other people think so that I can build an as unbiased essay as possible around the threads title..... and also trying not to make the essay a contradiction to it self....

[garazdawi]

Quote:

Originally posted by frogus Although scientists have to think of their ideas, the scientific facts do not come from a scientist's mind, they come from reality. A scientist cannot simply think something up and then go about proving it with unbiased means.

But there are "scientist" who prove their theories by more theory, they work with concepts such as i and the like to create new theories which are based upon an assumption that might not be true, indeed it has never been officially proven to be true but they still go on under this assumption and deveolop this idea out into the field of teh natural sciences and has develped a completely new field of research just by making one very biased assumption.

[Minerva]

Quote:

Originally posted by garazdawi Now this is the thread were you can insult all that science ever has been about, to strive to eliminate the personal point of view of the researches. This is what all science through out the world try to do, but is this really a good thing to strive after? Is it not the scientists pov (point of view) which creates all new ideas? I'm asking all of those out here who have a philisophical vein in their neck, what do you think is the answere to this question?

I've read this 7,8 times, and, I'm sorry to say, it's really confusing me. After reading fable's post, I could somehow work it out that there are two separate issue mixed together in this post. Could you make it a bit clearer?

[garazdawi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Minerva I've read this 7,8 times, and, I'm sorry to say, it's really confusing me. After reading fable's post, I could somehow work it out that there are two separate issue mixed together in this post. Could you make it a bit clearer?

What I really want to know is "Does personal point of veiw contribute in aquiring knowledge or hinder?", I might have muddled up a few thought when just throwing this idea out there.....

[Tybaltus]

You bring up some interesting points.

I really find that it all depends upon what field of science youre dealing with and how volatile or new the idea is that these scientists have discovered. For the new theories and for fields that require less doing and more thinking, then yes, their POV may indeed be subject to the theories base. Throughout time, however, if it is possible to critique it, then scientists will, and attempt to make it less of a POV based theory.

But I have a completely different side to this, which deals with religeon, which is something I wont get into as of yet.

[garazdawi]

So what u basically are saying is that the first idea is "corrupted" (in want of a better word) with the researcher's POV and that as time passes by his/hers ideas become more and more correct until it reaches a point where the resultis totally unbiased? it is a very interesting concept......

[Tybaltus]

Quote:

Originally posted by garazdawi So what u basically are saying is that the first idea is "corrupted" (in want of a better word) with the researcher's POV and that as time passes by his/hers ideas become more and more correct until it reaches a point where the resultis totally unbiased? it is a very interesting concept......

Yeah. Thats pretty much it. I dont know whether Im right or not, because Ive never done research on the birth and life of a theory and what stages it goes through. But thats pretty much the way I see it.

I mean you look at the theories of the atom, and you'd notice that it took about 5 or 6 people to evolve the theory to what it is today.

I mean it seems like my idea could apply...

[garazdawi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tybaltus Yeah. Thats pretty much it. I dont know whether Im right or not, because Ive never done research on the birth and life of a theory and what stages it goes through. But thats pretty much the way I see it. I mean you look at the theories of the atom, and you'd notice that it took about 5 or 6 people to evolve the theory to what it is today. I mean it seems like my idea could apply...

It is a sound idea and I cannot see why it wouldn't be valid, but then again I have never studied the life cycle of an idea as well, it's just stupid TOK class that forces me to do these things.....oh well there are worse subjects to write stuff in.....

[Tybaltus]

Quote:

Originally posted by garazdawi TOK class

TOK? What class is that?

[garazdawi]

It's an abrieveation of Theory of Knowledge and it is very similar to philosophy only that you discuss how we aquire knowledge and use it later on.....