The world that we inhabit is limited by the world that we see. Is there any
distinction to be drawn between knowledge claims dependent upon
observations made by sense perception and knowledge claims dependent
upon observations assisted by technology? Leave your comment below.
Springs Pacelli 
Science may be considered a less reliable way of knowing as it relies on observation. I will be exploring the distinction between knowledge knowledge claims dependent upon observations made by sense perception and knowledge claims dependent upon observations assisted by technology.
Depending on sense perception to verify or refute a theory tends to be less accurate, because, the way in-which we percieve a situation varies from one person to another.
However, the use of technology, such as: Microscopes, produces more accurate results.
In conclusion, there is great distinction between claiming through sense perception and observations assisted by technology.
You say that there is a ‘great distinction’ between sense perception and technology assisted observations, could you elaborate on that distinction?
Throughout history, scientific discovery have oftentimes been based on observation and perception. In our modern world, through technological advancements, technology has become a somewhat extension of the human body, it is an assistant and an improvement to everything our faulty senses can mislead us to believe.
Our mere sight, hearing, taste, feeling and smell could not replace the microscope; it cannot replace the ultrasound or the MRI. We need these scientific innovations in order to further our knowledge of the world and our understanding of all species. We must look upon technology as a friend, and not demean those who support innovation.