No, you understand best by direct experience
What’s the difference?
Observing is watching, experience is doing
I see your point. There are varying degrees of experience. And participating or doing can definitely lead to the greater form. But the way you’re using the terms seems arbitrary.
How is it arbitrary? You said that people learn best by observing. I disagree. People learn best by doing, not just seeing. You’re the one who has apparently conflated seeing and doing. Observation and experience are distinct things
No actually I didn’t say that.
Forget it.
I think that this conversation you’re having here is 99% with yourself.
Yes but have you considered this facebook post my friend shared that contradicts that?
Facts dont care about your feelings, libt*rd
That’s very hard to do with science, when you are a layman
Yes it is
If understanding was caused by direct observation we wouldnt have local weather-persons who doubt global warming.
Here in Czechia, far-right asshole was elected to the goverment recently and he announced that the climate crisis is over. It started snowing soon after and it’s really cold outside right now. Tons of snow also. By direct observation, I conclude that he is our savior and I’m voting for fascists from now on.
What’s really annoying is that a lot of fascist voters believe climate change is a thing but are prepared to fuck it up because they hate brown people.
Or just don’t care and saving the climate isn’t worth the pain for them. Lot of mildly right wing liberals I know say that climate change is a problem but are furious about every EU regulation and green deal. Basically only fight for climate as long as it doesn’t cost them anything.
Telling me what you think about what somebody else thinks is basically the opposite of direct observation.
Yes. And yet staring at twenty years of them reporting the weather would not at all improve my understanding of global warming. Especially if that observation was stretched out over twenty years.
Accurately recorded and identified specific observations are necessary for scientific progress, but their mere collection is not sufficient for understanding.
Science requires us to speculate, predict, test, and refine. And if all we do is observe without even having made a prediction, we’re not even testing.
Nobody said anything about only observing. And understanding does not require that we manufacture hypothesis or model. You are thinking science, which is another thing. I am thinking mere empiricism. After that there are multiple options. But yes, empirical basis is key.
Unless you are someone who learns by doing.
Watching someone cut up a plant of wood and mount it to a wall to be a shelf is all well and good, but some people will learn more by actually doing it.
Doing it makes for a better observation than watching it, surely.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!
Or even EMPIRICISM, BITCHES.
Because you don’t even need to craft a model at this point. And you can employ all kinds of fuzzy judgements that don’t encode into language, like vibe and aesthetic.
Language really is a crude, shallow and convention-bound thing.
