If u cn rd ths u r jst lke vryne lse.

1
If u cn rd ths u r jst lke vryne lse.

• Aoccdring to a rscheerarhat an Elingsh
  uinervtisy, it deosnt mttaer in waht oderr the
  ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihing
  is taht frist and lsat ltteer are at the rghit
  pclae. Youcan sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs
  is bcuseae we donot raed ervey lteter by itslef
  but the wrod as a wlohe.
• Cehiro!

2
Observation ordinary and scientific

• Its role in accounts of scientific reasoning
• Hansons arguments that observations are
  theory-laden
• The implications of Hansons arguments for
  accounts of scientific reasoning and of
  scientific objectivity

3
Observation

• In philosophy, it was long accepted that
• Facts are directly given through observation to
  unprejudiced observers with normal sensory
  receptors.
• Observations are (logically) prior to and
  independent of theory.
• Observations constitute a firm and reliable
  foundation for science.
• Assumed by both those who claimed scientists use
  The Inductive Method as well as by those who
  offered alternative accounts of scientific
  reasoning/logic.

4
Just how obvious are the observations
scientists and the rest of us engage in?

• Models of scientific reasoning
• For those advocating The Inductive Method,
  observation came first and generalizations and
  hypotheses only later.
• For those advocating Sophisticated Inductivism
  or Falsificationism, observations were the
  foundation by which theories can be confirmed or
  falsified.
• In our reading by Duhem, he does not discuss
  observation in detail when arguing for Holism but
  he does in a quote in Hansons article.

5
Just how obvious are the observations
scientists and the rest of us engage in?

• Enter a laboratory, approach the table crowded
  with an assortment of apparatus
• The experimenter is inserting into small
  openings the metal ends of ebony-headed pins the
  iron oscillates, and the mirror attached to it
  throws a luminous band on a celluloid scale the
  forward backward motion of this spot enables the
  physicist to observe the minute oscillations of
  the iron bar.
• But ask him what is he doing.

6
Just how obvious are the observations
scientists and the rest of us engage in?

• Will he answer I am studying the oscillations
  of an iron bar that carries a mirror?
• No, he will say that he is measuring the
  electric resistance of the spools. If you are
  astonished, if you ask him what his words mean,
  what relation they have with the phenomena you
  both have just observed
• He will answer that your question requires a long
  explanation and that you should take a course in
  electricity.

7
Observation

• What is the nature of observation?
• Is it raw? (the unvarnished news?)
• Will 2 observers with normal sensory receptors
  always see the same thing when looking at the
  same thing?
• Are observations, whether in science or common
  sense, prior to or independent of theory?
• Do observations provide a firm and reliable
  foundation for science?

8
Hanson on observation

• The general argument
• There are two senses of seeing
• The physical processes involved that result in 2
  tiny inverted images on each retina (which we do
  not see)
• The visual experience of seeing what we see.
• Observation, which is seeing in the second sense
  of visual experience, is not solely determined by
  the physical processes involved in the first
  sense of seeing.

9
Observation

• The physical process of seeing
• Light traveling from an object etches 4 inverted
  images on our retinas
• That information is sent, via the optic nerves,
  to our brains.
• So, if two of us are looking at the same object,
  from the same perspective, and similar lighting,
  etc the images on our retinas are the same as is
  the information sent via the optic nerves.
• Yet we may not be seeing the same thing in the
  sense of our visual experiences.

10
Hanson

• Important to keep in mind
• The interlocutor her purpose and her formula
• That Hanson never denies that there is a world
  full of objects that exist independently of us
  and constrain what it is possible to observe.
• Hanson offers layers of arguments and evidence to
  support his general argument that theres more
  to seeing than meets the eyeball.

11
Observation

• The interlocutor its purpose and its formula
• The purpose of the voice is to respond to what
  Hanson sees as the most obvious and significant
  challenge to his argument
• Namely, that observers in all of his examples
  (and generally) do see the same thing, but
  interpret it differently.
• This is an attempt to save the philosophical
  assumptions earlier outlined.

12
Observation

• Hansons response
• When observation is involved, we dont first see
  and then interpret we just see
• The act of interpreting does involve two steps
• Normal seeing does not
• If there wasnt a world independent of us that
  constrains what it is possible to observe, what I
  am arguing about the nature of observation would
  not be startling or surprising or a big deal.
  Its because there is such a world that my
  argument is significant because that world has
  been used to advance an overly naïve view of
  observations.

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Hanson on observation

• Gestalt experiences/experiments and Hansons
  general argument that
• There are two senses of seeing
• The physical processes involved that result in 2
  tiny inverted images on each retina (which we do
  not see)
• The visual experience of seeing what we see.
• That the second is not solely determined by the
  first.

18
Hanson on observation

• Gestalt experiences/experiments and Hansons
  general argument
• In each case, the object being observed does
  not change so the physical processes involved are
  the same (light rays, retinal images, etc.)
• But what we see in the sense of visual
  experience does change.
• We can learn to flip our image of the Necker
  cube we can learn to see the card deck includes
  anomalous cards.
• Prior experience, expectations, and learning to
  see

19
Observation

• Concepts, background knowledge, and general
  theories also help to shape what we see
  (observe).
• Perhaps obvious (or at least should be) when
  were discussing scientific observations

20
Observations in science

• Examples of the role of concepts and theories
• Debris tracks as evidence of subatomic particles
• Galileo and Jupiters moons, and the moons
  mountains and craters
• Archaeologists and anthropologists on beads,
  caves, burial sites, tools, etc.
• Psychologists on childrens development of a
  theory of mind (and relative lack thereof among
  other primates)
• Perfection vs. evidence of history and of
  jury-rigging
• Learning to see using scientific instruments
• Observing sexual behaviors of species

21
Observation

• Another layer conceptual schemes (or frameworks)
  help shape what we see
• Cross cultural differences
• Color schemes
• Red, white and black
• Mathematical systems
• 1, 2, 3, many
• Two dimensional representations of three
  dimensional objects

22
Conceptual schemes and language

• What do you see?
• What does an infant see?
• What does a three year old see?
• What does an adult who has never been introduced
  to apples see?

23
Conceptual schemes, language, and what we observe
24
Conceptual schemes, language, and what we observe

• Why doesnt the 3 year old (or we) see
• A puddle of apple stuff
• An apple-ing event
• A bunch of undetached apple parts
• An instantiation of the Platonic form Applehood
• Because of the conceptual scheme our language
  embodies and we learn as we learn the language
  individual physical objects, for the most part,
  as well as notions of individuation -- this is
  the same X I observed yesterday

25
Observation

• The interlocutors formula
• In each of Hansons examples (and mine), two
  people do see the same thing they just interpret
  it differently.
• Interpretation has a perfectly precise meaning.
  It sometimes involves figuring out what we are
  looking it when it isnt clear or looking for
  the meaning of a text. It does not belong here,
  in the case of ordinary seeing which just
  happens.

26
Observation

• The formula In each of Hansons examples, two
  people do see the same thing they just interpret
  it differently.
• It happens instantaneously, so were unaware we
  are doing it
• Hanson instantaneous interpretation, like some
  other ideas in the history of philosophy, is just
  spooky (without warrant, stranger than fiction
  and so forth).

27
Observation

• What are the implications of Hansons arguments
  for
• Models of scientific reasoning we have
  considered?
• The notion of scientific objectivity?
• The veracity of our own observations?