Is it possible to honestly examine a matrix in which the examiner exists as a consumer?
Is it possible to be totally-unbiased about the environment from which one receives all of the elements necessary for the examiner’s life?
Is it possible to properly-examine any portion of global real estate, without changing the global evidence, being examined, through the active consumption of food (i.e. subtraction & transformation,) and the active end-products of said consumption, being reintroduced into the environmental matrix?
Though it seems to be commonly-accepted as being of minimal risk, scientists must consciously take into account any aspect of and any degree to which the presence of the scientist, actually alters the scientific evidence under investigation.
However, in the job of the C.S.I. (aka Crime Scene Investigator) any alteration of evidence, under investigation, causes said evidence to be void, and inadmissible in a court of law.
The question may be asked, “How can we study our world at all, if to do so is to invalidate the evidence? It is wise to state an innate liability in a given approach to observation, investigation, study, assessment, and projected outcome in order to anticipate all necessary precautions, minimizing any inadvertent tampering or contamination of the evidence.
This precaution is a bit unwieldy to state, but relatively simple to apply. Scientists use latex gloves, dust masks, cloth or tarp coverings for areas needing special protection, for starters.
This potential for physical contamination of scientific evidence creates scenarios of painfully-slow progress at times.
The next area of concern is covered by the phrase, ” Nobody is perfect.”
There is the possibility that a scientist could observe one thing, yet write down a fact that is not completely accurate. Scribal-errors increase, if the writer is having to hear the words of the scientist performing the test.
Bearing this in mind has resulted in the institution of fail-safes to increase the potential for accuracy and the potential for the usage of the wonderfully news-worthy label, “proof.”
What “fail-safes” have been instituted?
Multiple scientists perform the same tests, increasing the potential through the establishment of “control groups.”
The same tests are repeated multiple times in order to notate anomalies as well as similarities, identifying a focused result.
The same tests are conducted at sea level, at high altitudes, and at times in unusual places, like the International Space Station.
When results are logged, noted, and adjusted as necessary for recurring anomalies at varying intervals, then the results are put through an arduous process of interpretation into long-term meanings.
The interpretation of evidence can be a more intense process than the gathering of the evidence, due to the varied viewpoints of honest scientists.
Those viewing evidence from the world-view of evolution will be inclined to interpret evidence as it relates to the proof or disproving of evolution. (The presupposition that “life as it is exists, apart from the need of any god” is arguably impossible to prove. It is a fact only by faith that it is fact).
Those viewing evidence from the world-view of creation will be equally-inclined to interpret evidence as it relates to the proof or the disproving of creation. (The presupposition that “life as it is exists is possible only through the intervention of One Almighty GOD” is arguably impossible to prove. It is a fact only by faith that it is fact).
Scientists vary in level of education, in degree of experience and expertise, in commitment to a single view of the world, and as with the rest of the world’s population in commitment to absolute honesty, when reporting evidence that potentially refutes one’s viewpoint.
Bottom Line: Evidence can’t lie, but humans reporting the evidence can properly represent or potentially misrepresent the evidence, either intentionally or through inexperience.
“Let the evidence speak” is good advice. The degree to which scientists are, also, accurate journalists is the degree to which the “evidence speaks.”
