Common Errors in Native Human Inquiry
The difference in quality of information gleaned from experiential reality versus agreement reality can readily be seen in the criminal justice system. The testimony of eyewitnesses to criminal events in court is viewed as the most compelling evidence available. In the absence of eyewitness (experiential) reality, agreement reality is settled for, however this information is not viewed in the same way. This circumstantial evidence can illustrate, for example, the capability of someone to have done a crime, or can put an individual in the same time and space as a victim, but it cannot be seen as convincing unless witnesses can document what they've seen from a firsthand basis. Information from a secondary source must always be viewed with caution. However, even firsthand information can be questionable if the safeguards used by science are omitted. The safeguards used be science go a long way toward eliminating the following common errors in everyday human inquiry.
To Sum Up
The above examples of common errors in everyday inquiry are the first hurdle in social scientific inquiry. We can go a long way in eliminating these common errors simply by observing more carefully, in a conscious manner. But as we've seen, a person cannot always be observing in this way, so knowing when to be a careful, conscious observer is key. What makes it easier is using the scientific method as a guide; the scientific method assures more careful observations and frames research in a way as to maximize the validity of results.