Dear Brad,

You raise an interesting question and make wise considerations. So, there is much to be commended in your considerations, I agree with you "ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE behavior patterns " Note, however, that not all sciences are based on KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE behavior patterns. Logic and mathematics are not based ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE behavior patterns . Also sciences can be emprical or based on KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE behavior patterns and not falling prey to empricism. In science we need empirical observations but also theory, epistemology and the like-

Kind regards.

Orlando

Orlando

Oh, Orlando, great pretender, as you yourself already likely knew: I used "behavior patterns" in a broad sense, really meaning 'phenomenon'. [ This fixes that issue you supposedly had ; and, it could go without fixing, if you just started with a broad conceptualization of "behavior patterns" (which is not uncommon, and which then means "phenomenon"). It is clearly ridiculous to think I meant just 'behavior' in some Psychology sense; you would think an intelligent reader of good-will would have to know this, rather than pretend to believe that this science teacher was not also thinking of Physics or any and all other sciences .] Perhaps you would like to attempt a useful and legitimate critique.

Now, addressing your new post: You say: " In science we need empirical observations but also theory, epistemology " , as if theory or epistemology were in some significant way separated or divorced from observation, and thus divorced from science. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Now, you must show how, or your argument is done.

Let me continue on now and further address your post, your "new" topic, also including math and logic :

Logic and mathematics hinge on observables. They are just great abstractions.

"Abstract" never, or in an real sense, implies or indicates (logically or mathematically, even) that they are not founded on concrete real, observables (or perhaps their negation but still, then ...[as I said] ) ... and no one could show they weren't.

For your information Ethogram Theory IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE seeks to show (when the research is done) THAT ALL concepts/thinking (and addressed by Psychology) are minimally, and/or at their inception, BASED or FOUNDED on directly observable overt phenomenon * (in the case of psychology, behavior patterns) -- this includes all the most abstract concepts and thinking a human is capable of.

* FOOTNOTE: This is just basic empiricism and must be assumed unless proven otherwise (which, really, is irrational).

-------------------

Because of the importance of a general definition of science, I shall restate mine (SO ALL UNDERSTAND): (The phrase, "behavior patterns" replaced -- AS WAS MEANT in the first place -- by: "phenomenon"; I now make that explicit) :

ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable PHENOMENON patterns ( so both "sides of the equation" are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (

Dear Brad.

You may be rigth, but I cannot see how logic and mathematics hinge on observables. I am no able to see any numbers. Number are conceptual constructions and hence they are are nor observables. Maybe because of your way of writing, there are several sentences that are in lack of parsimony. As I see it, scientific writing should be clear and clean. When this is not the case misunderstandings are like to occur. Please, forgive me I am misundersanding you.

Kind regards,

Orlando

Dear Orlando

[ I should accept your apology, in the last part of your post, and I should apologize for being so defensive and harsh. Consider those things done. ] Moving on:

You say: "Number are conceptual constructions and hence they are nor [(not?)] observables. " (end quote) Non sequitur. A heck of a lot of conceptual constructions are clearly and obviously concrete or concretely based AND it is simply by not being an empiricist AND BY using insufficient imagination one can fail to imagine (or, as an empiricist, assume) that ALL concepts and thinking, AT LEAST AT THEIR INCEPTION, are based on concrete situations or circumstances.

The problem: There simply seems to be a falsely conceptualized limit on/in what many people can believe can be "brought forth" from the Memories and through working memory; it is enough for one circumstance, as actually processed, to be, in effect, like it is two or three, etc. , and with these possibly seeming to be very different: BUT IT IS JUST --> ONE CIRCUMSTANCE (ANY new parts being CONCRETE *)

P.S. If we cannot "keep track of" all the contents of the Memories, which contextualize a given type of situation, then how would we be able to find, in at least some of these circumstances: the new observable "concretes" which are part-and-partial of/at the inception of a qualitatively new way of thinking? Yet WE DO this (as a species) VERY RELIABLY. My answer to how this can occur, is that at KEY times (during development) basic processes directing learning (e.g. perception then attention) necessarily involve "the innate" expressing itself in "perceptual shifts" * that, in effect, directly effects what we learn (at that moment and time). Thus, these "perceptual shifts" are necessary for Ethogram Theory , seeking to be a full general theory of human cognitive development; also these "perceptual/attentional shifts" which all humans (and likely several animals) will LITERALLY SHOW , THEY BEING OVERT (though also subtle); these CAN be observed with the new eye-tracking technology (and computer-assisted analysis).

THESE are the very directly observable overt phenomenon that are PREDICTED BY the clear empirical HYPOTHESES of Ethogram Theory. (Thus these are very empirical and completely testable hypotheses.)

* FOOTNOTE: The "perceptual shifts", innately-guided, are simultaneous with the learning processes involved. No nature/nurture problems in Ethogram Theory -- a matter otherwise NOT reasonably settled with respect to behavior patterns (per se)

See also my posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_psychology_suitable_for_experimental_research for more of the full outlook on science.