View Single Post
11-25-2008   #6 (permalink)
Devil's Advocate
Vegeance's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada, Ontario
Posts: 1,203
iTrader: (0)
Vegeance has a spectacular aura aboutVegeance has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via MSN to Vegeance
IGN: Scorpia, ScorpiaX, Excali
Guild: Hidden

Originally Posted by Azusa
This sounds like another terrible case of generalization.

Not to mention knowledge vs. experience. Scientists and researchers can observe their subjects all they want, but I would not take what they say at face value, even if they explain things throughly and in a persuasive manner.

Which gets me to the point of persuasion: This article is written in a very persuasive tone as if to enlighten the uneducated and oblivious masses... such a tone should not be necessary when the topic should be second nature to us. If what is written is really "human nature", that is.
Knowledge -> Constants
Once, your out of the field of acquiring knowledge, (let's say you read what to do) in reality, there might be some variables here and there that throw you off because you never actually experienced it for yourself.

Experience ->
One can have all the experience they need, but that does not necessarily make them 'proficient' at all, with experience comes acquired knowledge in certain situations, which is the advantage of 'knowing what to do, according to ...' . And experience can be applied repetitively or adapted into.

Experience would be procedural experience, knowing the protocols, and know-how, however there is a flaw in experience, as if if I had made the argument 'All men are stupid around women' in experience, than it would be equivalent to saying experience is what
you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science
or if I said breathing by inhaling twice quickly and exhaling deeply once by running is the most effective way to run, than that might not be true because I'm solely basing it on my own experience.

Anyway, I believe that this article suggests something and people take it as fact is what your trying to say.
I like to say that science cannot prove anything (to be definitely true), but it can suggest something and disprove something (in reality), while experience can cause you to believe something (that seems to be true).

Science kinds of uses observation and experience at a higher level, with a theory to analyze the data, and the media to bias it while experience solely relies on reference to self-observation.

Last edited by Vegeance; 11-25-2008 at 07:33 PM.