What's more important?

[Radagast]

Science is, in my opinion, the best example of an area where it's far more important to learn how to observe and search than to simply learn the correct answer. The number of scientific discoveries found through careful observation of fairly mundane matters is huge. Furthermore, if there is one thing science has taught us, it's that reality does not follow what we feel the "obvious" answer is.

If you mean solo observation and search, I don't think that's quite true -- science relies heavily on observations collected by other people (think of Kepler and Brahe, or Watson/Crick and Franklin), and on insights from other people (that's why we have textbooks and lectures).

Most scientific knowledge I have was learned from other people -- only some (in my own particular research area) was based on my own personal observations, or on my analysis of the observations of others.

For mathematical knowledge, I have tried over the years to check the proofs in most of what I read, but I certainly haven't tried to prove everything on my own without guidance.

 

[[serious]]

If you mean solo observation and search, I don't think that's quite true -- science relies heavily on observations collected by other people (think of Kepler and Brahe, or Watson/Crick and Franklin), and on insights from other people (that's why we have textbooks and lectures).

Most scientific knowledge I have was learned from other people -- only some (in my own particular research area) was based on my own personal observations, or on my analysis of the observations of others.

For mathematical knowledge, I have tried over the years to check the proofs in most of what I read, but I certainly haven't tried to prove everything on my own without guidance.

certainly, scientists build on each other's discoveries, but bear in mind that Brahe made his observations alone. Likewise, Kepler worked with those figures only after Brahe's death. By the way, this is a perfect example of something that was "obvious" at the time (perfect orbits) ultimately being wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

Science is, in my opinion, the best example of an area where it's far more important to learn how to observe and search than to simply learn the correct answer.

You can't be serious. Oh, you are [serious].

The number of scientific discoveries found through careful observation of fairly mundane matters is huge.

Right, scientific discovery is the goal of scientific observation.

Also, little point here, science doesn't concern itself with finding meaning.

In theory it mostly shouldn't, but in actual practice it often does. Why else does a biologist like Dawkins think he has any business declaring "there is no God"?

 

[[serious]]

You can't be serious. Oh, you are [serious].



Right, scientific discovery is the goal of scientific observation.



In theory it mostly shouldn't, but in actual practice it often does. Why else does a biologist like Dawkins think he has any business declaring "there is no God"?

Being a scientist doesn't mean people can't have opinions on nonscientific matters.

I do think Dawkins falls into much the same trap of favoring trying to get people to believe what he thinks is right rather than encouraging people to simply honestly seek answers. I think we are likely in complete agreement there.

And as for scientific discovery being the goal of scientific observation, not always. Often the observation is simply done for it's own sake. There are some big pushes to simply document and record.