Science is objective, hmmm?

15 November 2006

The first article in this discussion (article discusses use of fetus visuals in a TV program about birth) is perhaps most interesting to the audience, but the whole thread is suggestive of a big debate about how we assign a lot of accuracy to media simply because they are easy to interpret.

I contend, however, that biology does not “to a greater extent than most sciences depend on things you cannot see first hand.” Astronomy has its suite of immense instruments and non-unanimous software, chemistry has any number of obscure -meters, and geophysics has more remote sensing than you can shake a color-IR, vegetation-enhanced stick at. These disciplines all possess (mostly) stable means of using these tools in analysis.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: