“Science is a way of describing reality; it is therefore limited by the limits of observation, and it asserts nothing which is outside observation.” This quote is only somewhat valid. What about space? Yes, we observe some of it, but we have yet to figure it all out yet. We have no idea what is out there. What about air? Yes, we feel the effects of it, but we can’t physically feel it, smell it, taste it or hear it.
We can’t even see it. Astronomers have good reason to believe that black holes are real, but no one can get close enough to observe them. It’s still, however, part of science.
What’s pseudoscience? It’s kind of like the opposite of science almost. There are many differences between the two. Science is tentative, whereas pseudoscience is absolute knowledge. Also, science looks for disproof while pseudoscience looks for proof of a theory. In science, the observation made determines what the proof is.
In pseudoscience, truth determines the observation being made. When there’s a possible error in science, scientists will work to fix those errors, however,r in pseudoscience,e they will just keep continuing with no changes to fix those errors. I believe that science proves the quote because even without observations, we still look for disproof, it’s tentative, and errors are always attempted to be fixed.
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world.
Of course, the quote goes with this, but I disagree with the quote. I don’t think you have to be able to observe science. Maybe to an extent, but not completely. The scientific method is all about observing and making a hypothesis, conclusion, and experiment about the initial observations, but what about the things we can’t see, smell, hear, taste or touch? For example air. In a way, we’re touching air but it doesn’t have a smell, we cannot see it, hear it, or taste it at all.