Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

In the production of knowledge, does it matter that observation is an…

- - - - hence the observation is carried out using physical instruments (tool) that are also flawed.
        
        tools used by the knower can be flawed due to poor designs, environmental factors, improper handling, measurement errors
      - extend the sensory experiences with tools such as: thermometers, microscopes, telescopes
        
        we dont see "through" it but we see "with" it
      - flawed : comes from our cognitive biases (interpret data subjectively) and sensory limitations
    - - example : A falling ball (no matter how detailed our observations of it may be) does not directly tell us how gravity works
      - we can only see the subject's behaviour
  - - - does it matter that flaws can limit objective truth / knowledge if it drive progress by forcing new methodologies?
      - does it matter that observation is an essential but flawed tool if scientific knowledge produced relies heavily on accurate evidence? (repeated results)
        
        even if the knower can produce repeated results from their findings in the knowledge production, how can they know whether they are in the wrong or right track?
        
        in this case, does it matter the observation is needed but has flaws as it nature?
        
        2 possibilities : repeated results but wrong, or repeated results but it is correct, but then, how can we identify this?
        
        does the observation is needed but flawed tool, because it can provide different results that could push knower to conclude their findings? does it matter in this case?
        
        hence, If observation is essential in the production of knowledge, does that make its flaws matter more (because they are unavoidable --> due to our limitations) or less (because we accept them as part of knowing)?
- - - - because human perception is selective and based on their intrepetation
      - depends not on what is observed but on how it is understood and communicated.
      - the knowledge the knower produce reflects personal perspective, cultural context, and emotional response.
      - does it matter observation is needed but flawed tool if the flaw is what enables creativity and expression?
      - When artists and audiences observe differently (flawed), is the flaw in observation a limitation or a form of knowledge diversity?
        
        does it matter in the production of knowledge if observation creates multiple versions of knowledge rather than a single truth?
        
        Could the flaw in observation makes artistic knowledge deeper rather than weaker? does it matter?