On Scientific Observation

This content is available through online browsing (free) program dependent on page scan. Screen readers can not currently scan, so please contact JSTOR user support for access. We will provide PDF copy of your screen reader

Primates are science. It is widely believed that the scientific observation of nature must be extremely limited or completely controlled. In any case, the observers must remain neutral to their subject. This allows data to be unbiased, and objects are not affected by human interference. In semi-free ranging research, scientists can observe how primates move outdoors, but they are more likely to approach the ability to control the environment. These facilities include the Life Link Center of the National Primate Research Center in Yaks, Georgia, and the Elgin Center of the Lions National Wildlife Park in Florida Province.

Scientific observation is the driving force for promoting scientific discovery and scientific theory. By theory, scientists can systematically understand initial observations, then predict and create future observations. Scientific theory has common features that distinguish them from non-scientific ideas such as beliefs and pseudoscience. Scientific theory must be consistent, minimalistic, correctable, empirically verifiable, verifiable, useful and gradual. Scientists did not use the word "theory" like words. In most cases, the theory is a vague and vague concept of how things work, that is, a theory with low possibility of reality. This is the origin of complaints. In other words, scientific things are "mere theory" and can not be trusted.

Since reality can always amaze us, the work of scientific observation can never be done with absolute certainty, which means that the comprehensive reality theory can not be based solely on scientific observations I mean it. Instead, it must be based on a general scientific observation process based on the relationship between thinking and reality. Therefore, CTMU is essentially a theory of relationship between mind and reality. In explaining this relationship, the CTMU actually shows that there are complicated attributes similar to self-recognition. In other words, reality is like a heart in a sense, as the heart is a reality. However, when trying to answer the obvious question "Who is thinking", you can see that the answer is God's mathematical and scientific definition.