Logical analysis of data (based on causality) that is collected through sense perception establishes the perceived reality/facts.
Collected data through sense perception doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of objective reality that independently lies outside the limits of awareness/knowledge.
The data never establishes a reality. Logic does through logical evaluation of the data.
The data is relative/limited because of the limited capacity of the senses but Logic in not subject to the limitation of sense perception and allows broader understanding of reality.
We exist in a world of relative entities, it’s difficult to understand the absolute but we can logically understand that all relative entities must be grounded in the absolute.
You got everything backward, LIIA.
Evidence are parts of the physical phenomena or natural phenomena, that are being observed.
Observations are not just those that we can directly see, hear, touch or smell, but also those observed through devices, instruments or equipment that can detect and measure and test the evidence.
A lot of these devices not only assist with observing, but can measure and test evidence that human’s sensory perceptions cannot perceive.
For instance, our eyesight can directly perceive color through the visible light range in the electromagnetic spectrum. But there are limitations as to what human eyesight can see, therefore required some sorts of devices to get the precise measurements of the EM wavelengths and frequencies of each colors. Plus, some people’s eyesights are better than others, while other may have defects that people may have blindness of some kinds, eg color blindness.
Plus, there are devices that allow us to observe EM waves beyond the visible range of human eyesight, such as infrared, ultraviolet, microwaves, x-ray, gamma waves, radio waves. And then there are the many applications for these EM waves, eg radio, television, computer networking, telecommunications (mobile phones, satellite communication, fibre optic, etc), devices used medicines (digital thermometer that use infrared to measure a person’s body temperature without even touching that person, X-ray machine, mri machine, etc), astronomy (optical telescopes, radio telescopes, telescopes that can observed in the infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, X-ray, gamma wave ranges), camera and video camera can record events, etc.
The point being, despite what a human eye can see, we have use our knowledge with EM field in physics, plus knowledge in technology and engineering to design and manufacture devices capable of doing observations that our eyesight are not capable of.
And I have mentioned that devices can do our “observations” for us, but these devices can do more than just “observing” evidence, they can also provide information or raw data that scientists and engineers can use to understand.
Data comes from physical evidence, which would include detection of the physical properties of the evidence (what the evidence are made of, eg solid, liquid, gas or plasma, metal, wood, minerals, inorganic or organic makeup, etc), the physical characteristics of the evidence (eg measurements of dimensions, volume, mass, density, wavelength or frequency, electrical voltage, current or power, etc).
All these data or information comes from objective observations, especially when the observations come from data-gathering and data-measuring devices being used.
It is the job of some specialists, eg scientists, medical doctors, engineers, etc, to understand these data means, through diagnosis and their experiences in that fields.
No, LIIA.
Data are part of the evidence, information about the observed physical evidence.
Scientists do try to attempt to understand what these data mean, and how they they can be used. Our understanding may be correct or they may be wrong, but the data are the actual information that you gained directly from the evidence.
Your problems are, that you are confusing raw data with a person’s understanding of the data. Data are independent of our understanding. It is our understanding that may be right or wrong.
Sorry, LIIA, but I find your logic to be seriously flawed and backward.
