Let me say a bit more. A starting perspective MUST be core-observation _AND core-principle founded, and grounded on that which is minimally clearly related to directly observable overt phenomena. These are absolute requirements for empiricism, for science. And remember: _your Subject, NOT YOU, should in-true-effect define every word and concept and the structure and nature of every set of concepts (much of all this following new observation and NEW DISCOVERIES). A strict, abiding, perspective of this quality is REQUIRED FOR ANY AND ALL SCIENCES.
If you do not start like this and stay like this, your sets-of-hypotheses/theory AND your approach will be contaminated (specifically: false w/r to reality) in some ways, and more and more, and lead you away from finding things as the really are.
[ P.S. NO need to try to "define" terms (providing generalities) or to define "realities" (boundaries). THIS IS NOT THE "JOB" OF A SCIENTIST _AND_ IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to any notable extent through thinking alone. And yet, with this (doing as I indicated), there can be some real and good science related to anything ... ]
There is no reasonable and sound counterargument or major perspective. I actually view this Discussion (so far, as I have presented it) as quite beyond discussion. I see it as a foundational Law of Science. (Yet, there are those who seek science, or seek to progress their 'science', who violate this LAW every day.)
What concept and discussion I will present, at first it must be clear and presentable for me. Then I will present it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science