When scientists describe (natural) phenomena during oral presentations or in publications, they often replace the description of these phenomena by interpretations of what the phenomena are without having sufficient background knowledge of how and why these phenomena exist. Consequently, exactly the same behavioral expression (e.g. birds approached the feeder) can be defined in different ways (e.g. risk-taking, feeding response, boldness or shyness, exploration behavior, etc..). Should science terminology be based on what is observed or the interpretation of what is observed?
Dear Marcel,
As Alessandro put it out the root of your question is a very old one.
There are some relatively clean scientific fields like mathematics and physics where the system of mathematical characters is much better fitted to the processes and “observations” to be studied than in case of “literary” scientific fields such as biology, ecology or behaviour.
Certainly, there is an enormous need for improving the elements and systems of scientific interpretation.
I think Alessandro’s second remark considers the bad approach creating useless pseudo scientific expressions. Some people are extremely good doing such things.
I think to create good new interpretative spiritual “instruments” needs a very long evolution which should be tied to a possible cultural and reflecting change.
Until this scientific “paradise” we should use the old imprecise interpretative terminology.
Hello C.,
Many scientist present the terminology of what they think it is ('Interpretations of observations') in the Introduction sections of publications.
This may imply either that
1) the terminology the authors use is based on an interpretation, not an observation, or
2) the introduction is adjusted to what has been observed. E.g. the introduction is written after the methods and results sections have been written.
In my opinion this is a very old rethorical trick : to give a specifically tailored name for a contingent observation elevates the rank of the contingency to an 'established concept'. The use of English Language worsens the situation given to create 'new names' in English is incredibly easier than in other languages (e.g. 'Bladerunner' (english) : 'Uno che corre su una lama' (italian)).
I do not think this is consciously an intepretation that substitutes the mere fact, it is simply a matter of 'self-promotion' of the scientist in order to be more 'suggestive' for the reader that after a while becomes a jargon. This is not necessarily a bad thing (I think rethorics is not a bad word, anyone needs to be understood when he/she speaks and to know how to be understood is a crucial skill in science) , it becomes risky when a fascinating name (think for example 'hydropobic core' for the inner part of proteins) become so popular to be accepted without further investigation and given for granted...then someone try and make some computations and 'puff' the core disappears. It was never there, simply the concept survived because someone gave him a successfull name.
There are many examples like this in science...some of them are very silly and largely misleading like the word 'recruit' to explain how proteins that interact come near-to-each-other, how protein A can 'recruit' protein B: with her voice ? with an SMS ? whistling ? The verb implies protein molecules are intelligen agents and only few try and go in depth into this case that is given for granted, come one the proteins 'recruit' each other...
Dear Artur,
I think you can easily separate 'observation' from 'interpretation of observation' even in a manuscript that combines results and discussion. But how to introduce a study in an Introduction of a publication or research project avoiding bias in terminology that involves interpretation of phenomena under study without having access to essential background information?
Example:
If you say you want to study risk-taking in birds in an introduction and study this with a bird approaching an man-made object (e.g. a small plastic pink panther), how to be sure that the behaviour under study involves indeed 'risk-taking' or perhaps 'curiosity' or 'exploration'? How to decide to place the Introduction in the framework of 'risk-taking', 'curiosity' or 'exploration' without having access to the results presented after the Introduction?
Hello again,
You say: 'You will never separate 'observations' from interpretations'
I would be inclined to make the same philosophical remark. I agree that human-invented words represent classes of phenomena each differing in physics in at least one scale of analysis or perception. Each word might therefore be considered as an interpretation of what phenomena have in common. Each object what people call 'nest' is unique in physical expression, so language could potentially become much more complicated if for each individual nest in the world people would invent another/new word......
But then again we might stop doing research and might stop writing articles if we would follow the philosophical approach mentioned above.
So let's continue the discussion:
You say: 'You will never separate 'observations' from interpretations'
'A bird builds a nest': An 'observation' or an 'interpretation'? If people learn and speak the same language, I think there is human-invented consensus what this observation represents. 'A bird builds a nest' could of course be replaced by 1-10 sentences describing the behaviour: A bird delivers pieces of vegetation to a place and put them together to create a cup'. Then again, if people learn and speak the same language, there is consensus what 'pieces' are, 'vegetation' is, a 'cup' is...... . People learn to make a relationship between human defined words and visual images perceived through the senses.
'Five bird eggs in a nest': An 'observation' or an 'interpretation'? How many interpretations possible?
'The bird sings': An observation or an interpretation? How many interpretations possible?
'If someone is observing a bird singing, the observer could replace this observation by several interpretations: 'The bird is defending a territory (Territorial defence); The bird is attracting a female; The bird is stimulating a female; The bird is enjoying himself; The bird is occupying himself; The bird is showing off; etc.....
A title like 'Birds sing' (an observation?) could be replaced by an interpretation like 'Birds vocally defend a territory' (an interpretation not excluding alternative interpretations for the behaviour that birds sing?)
Hello Artur,
Science practice accepts imprecisions in how phenomena are described. The, imprecisions are reflected in words that classify phenomena together of which we assume they have characteristics in common (interpretation). The problem is that each phenomenon (object, event, living being) is unique in physical expression.
For instance, different phenomena that we call 'nest' do not share exactly the same physical structure. Each nest in the world is unique in physical expression/structure. Each nest therefore could potentially be given a different name (e.g. nestA, nestB, nestC, etc...) substantially increasing the complexity of the language used to describe phenomena in nature.
Ontologically speaking, language is not an adequate representation of reality.
If we replace "science terminology" with "concepts" then to answer the question, we may have to investigate "concept formation" from a cognitive and constructionist perspectives.
Marcel,
Chukcha people in Russia near Alyaska have 100 different words for "snow".
Observation without interpretation has no sense (see Einstein).
With best regards,
Eugene.
I don't agree with the observation in the post, "they often replace the description of these phenomena by interpretations of what the phenomena are without having sufficient background knowledge of how and why these phenomena exist" though recognise ontological and linguist problems in not only science but any enquiry as well as have a great admiration for the person.who posted it i.e., Marcel.
In fact description is preliminary stage of a science based on immediate observation an object or event without knowing what and why. When a scientists interpret an object or event, he knows what he talking about. Interpretation cannot be done without knowing properties (description), its behaviour, response to other events, it interconnectedness with other phenomena and processes and it cannot be complete knowing why does it exits? Therefore, I beg to differ from the observation, " what the phenomena are without having sufficient background knowledge of how and why these phenomena exist".
Interpretation is a higher stage above description in the evolutionary concept of science. Without description, interpretation is not possible and interpretation needs more information than simply description of observations.
In times much wiser than ours St. Thomas the Aquinas could enter his classroom in Sorbonne holding in his hands an apple and intimating : 'This is an apple and who disagrees must exit this classroom NOW'. The intimation was a form of necessary defense against the skepticist in the room that soon or later had ask 'Who can SURELY affirm this classroom is real and we are not part of a crazy scientist very sophisticated experiment'...well these ideas can be useful for Matrix film series but unluckily are destroying our culture since hundreds of years in which a lot of people thought the skepticist was after all an intelligent guy and he could have a part of reason...
I'm convinced the right way of behaving is the Aquinas way for a very simple reason: before starting to play WE MUST HAVE SHARED RULES WE ACCEPT WITHOUT FURTHER ANALYSIS OTHERWISE THE GAME WILL NEVER START and the stronger (or richer or owner of the media or public education minister..) will be forever right because he shouts stronger than the others.
Out of metaphor, clearly our language has limits, anything in this world has limits, pure facts simply do not exist, our interpretation is embedded into observations , but if we want to continue the game of increasing knowledge and contemplation of nature we must use what we have in our hands and not trying to pursue impossible (and dangerous) gnosis utopias. Moreover the possibility of both Art and Science strictly derives by the presence of limits, if anyting is possible nothing is really interesting.
What is important, on the other hand,it is to keep eyes open with respect to rethorical tricks, not justified statements and so forth...but this is a completely different issue.
Is there coherence in shared rules concerning details in language expression across scales of analysis?
Providing individual-specific names to individual phenomena observed in nature will significantly increase language complexity. We give individual names to different planets or different suns (of the same class) or different galaxies, thus natural phenomena that can be observed for (thousands of) years/centuries. We don't give individual names for different individual bird nests, thus natural phenomena observed during brief periods of time (e.g. a couple of weeks).
Has there been scientific consensus about how long individual phenomena must persist in time before they are accepted to be named individually? And what is physical persistence in time given that each (dynamic) phenomenon is unique in physical expression at any spatiotemporal moment?
The only possible consensus is on SHARED MATERIAL EXPERIENCES. When Mendel discovered the existence of discrete carriers of heredity called genes, his way of reasoning was based on this simple fact: If I mix two liquids A and B, the resulting mixture C will have intermediate features between the two original components and, after mixing I will never be able to come out with the original pure ingredients. This is not the case when I mix a cerain amount of discrete (let'say small balls of A and B ) types.Given in the second hybrid generation I will have in my hands individuals having the original pure features this implies I was mixing discrete entities, thus genes are discrete. This way of reasoning holds even if Mendel could not know the molecular nature of genes, the same reasoning holds true for Rutherford famous experiment on the planetary nature of atoms. Any real scientific statement derives its validity by an effective connection with an intuitive material experince, by the way both Mendel and Rutheford were not TOTALLY RIGHT, now we know genes are made of separated pieces (introns, exons) and have not a onte-to-one relation with pehnotypes, nevertheless big advancements were made by assuming the Mendel's view, teh same for Rutherford: now we know about a lot of subatomic particles, quantum field theory and so forth, nevertheless a myriad of new applications and knowledge arised by Rutherford simplification. In science (like in real life) we recognize TRUTH (even if partial) because ot its FERTLITY, Truth gives rise to a lot of children, it is fertile, 'we recognize the value of something by the fruits it gives'.
Thus science can work without having access to (unnecessary) details?
A bird can survive and reproduce without having access to science or without having access to all physical details in the habitat.
Dear Marcel,
As Alessandro put it out the root of your question is a very old one.
There are some relatively clean scientific fields like mathematics and physics where the system of mathematical characters is much better fitted to the processes and “observations” to be studied than in case of “literary” scientific fields such as biology, ecology or behaviour.
Certainly, there is an enormous need for improving the elements and systems of scientific interpretation.
I think Alessandro’s second remark considers the bad approach creating useless pseudo scientific expressions. Some people are extremely good doing such things.
I think to create good new interpretative spiritual “instruments” needs a very long evolution which should be tied to a possible cultural and reflecting change.
Until this scientific “paradise” we should use the old imprecise interpretative terminology.
Dear Andras,
why do you think physics is much better fitted to the processes and observations?
Examples:
- Is 'gravity' an 'observation' or an interpretation of an observation?
- Are phenomena described in quantum physics observations or interpretations of observations?
- Are phenomena described as distant 'suns' observed in space observations or interpretations of observations (e.g. phenomena that occurred in the past)?
I don't see any difference between physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, behavior, etc....., but perhaps you have more arguments to reject this supposition.
To give a concrete example in Physics:
People wish to study 'matter A' but they only have access to the 'reflectance patterns of matter A' to study 'matter A' based on empirical biology-based perception, whatever the sophistication of techniques used in empirical research (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, etc...).
Dear Marcel,
Unfortunately, I have but an elementary training in mathematics and physics. I could observe their observations and scientific approach but through dim glasses. I consider that many phenomena in mathematics and physics can be described by mathematical characters which are more objective than our “literary” language. You have asked me on subjects which do not belong to my observation and scientifically percepted areas. To have an adventure in these fields would be a bit risky. Thus, I ask you: can you describe clearly mathematically the singing behaviour of the great tit in order to decrease erroneous human interpretation of this phenomenon?
Dear All,
in every field of science we are dealing with 'representations' i.e. with the setting of a stage (see the attached paper of mine equating science to theater) in which each agent plays a role. In physics the agents are more easily recognized across different acts (like the characters of Italian 'Commedia dell'Arte', Arlecchino, Pulcinella, Pantalone) because it is possible to give for them a formal definition independent of tha actual determination in the particular case, thus velocity IS the derivative of the space with respect to time without the need to imagine a specific body that is moving, while it is impossible to define a lymphocite without the consideration of the actual cells in specific organism. In chemistry we have perhaps the most interesting and sophisticated way of naming (the 'central' position occupied by chemistry is probably the reason for the unique efficiency of its language). Thus 'methane' is not only a symbolic name but it emerges FORCEDLY by the fulfilling of valence rules of both carbon and hydrogen (as formalized by IUPAC) and thus IMPLIES a given structural formula, from where the relevant properties of the molecule (molar refractivity, solubility, boiling point, reactiviy..) can be computed.. in the same time methane (CH4) derives its properties by both composition and mutual arrangement of costituent atoms (bottom up causation) and on the other side the SAME hydrogen atom (i.e. the same entity) has different properties (e.g. partial charge) if it is embedded in a water molecule H2O or in a methane molecule (top down causation).
This gives to chemistry the unique flavour of 'nomen omen' that is lacking on other sciences but in any case, ANY SCIENCE piece is a theatrical representation, with characters more or less defined, the theater represents REALITY but IS NOT the reality. But waht exists, the substantial thing IS REALITY (not theater), this implies tehater plays are not equivalent, the best ones are the ones most fit with the relaity they want to represent (Adaequatio intellectus et rei).
The interpretation of wildlife behavior from a distance is not easy. Scientists cannot ask wildlife to explain in human language why they behaved as they behaved. Motivation expressed in the mind will influence behavioral action, but the same perceived behavior might result from different underlying motivations or feelings.
This can be illustrated with scientific observations from a distance that one individual only drinks wine whereas another individual only drinks water. How to interpret this observation? Specialists in taste science might propose that the two individuals drink what they like to drink: one person likes wine, whereas the other person likes water or does not like wine. Specialists in social sciences may argue that the two individuals like wine, but that one of the two drinks water because the other prefers wine. Health specialists could perhaps propose that the individual that drinks water only drinks water because others told him that too much wine penalizes personal health condition. Wildlife specialists might explain that the person only drinking water does not want to share the bottle of water with the other person. Specialists in religion might think that the person that drinks wine is forcing to other to drink water so that the other remains healthy. Specialists in natural history might want to know the role of historical facts. Did the person that drink water drunk too much wine the day before? How can observers analyse and interpret wildlife behavior from a distance without having access to information provided by individuals explaining why they shared or not shared resources or without having access to historical facts prior to the initiation of observations?
Apparently, there are many possible interpretations based on a few simple observations in the field or a cafeteria. Interpretations might change with the education background of observers.
Mathematics are human inventions aimed to describe nature’s diversity and dynamics.
As an example, numbers could be considered as human-invented symbols aimed to count and quantify phenomena (objects, events, organisms) that have human-defined characteristics in common. Mathematicians add physical phenomena with perceived shared characteristics (1 + 1 = 2). However, two physical phenomena always differ in at least one level of analysis or perception (1' representing phenomenon A does not equal 1'' representing phenomenon B) and phenomena differing in Physics are given the same mathematical weight. Consequently, 1' + 1'' does not equal 2, or 1 + 1 = 2 does not reflect Physics in nature. The need to count with numbers will thus depend on physical details taken into account when phenomena are defined or described. If each individual is unique in physical structure, quantities exceeding '1' are philosophically not required. In other words, the simplest mathematical based summary of nature's complexity would be '1', and the types of '1' to be mathematically defined would match the number of physical structures investigated.
Thus, mathematics is based on interpretations of the physical world observed.
Again, dear Marcel a big problem is to consider science work more similar to the work of a philosopher while it is more similar to that of a capenter, adjusting its piece according to his needs. I will tell you a story happened to me around twenty years ago. In that time I worked in a pharmaceutical industry doing statistics for behavioral experiments, now there is a very famous test called Morris water maze that is used for studying learning ability of rats. The rat is posed into a pool filled with water made opaque by the addition of milk, just under the surface, in a specific point of the pool there is a platform where the rat can stay and remain outside the water, when the rat reaches that point, the experimenter takes it away from the pool.
Rats progressively session-by-session learn the location of this place so they stay lesser and lesser time in the pool, the relation between session number and time spent in the pool is linear and the slope of this relation is a measure of rat learning ability.
So far so good, the point is that after a certain number of sessions the researchers noted a seemingly paradoxical effect: this linear relation was lost and the rats started to show an unpredictable behavior: in some cases they stayed a lot in the pool, in other cases they imemdiately reached the hidden platform...what did happen ? Simply they were used to stay in the pool (no more fear) and their goal was no more to exit more quickly as possible, thus if that specific rat, in that particular occasion liked to swim it remained in the pool a lot of time, if it did not want to swim it immediately reached the platform to go out.
The Morris water maze did not measure anymore learning ability but the contingent will of that particular rat to take a swim, our paradygm of measure did not work anymore...we had the proof of this by a very simple mean: we added ice cubes into the pool so that no rat wanted to stay inside the poll and poof ! the paradoxical effect vanished. That is to say that the link between measurement (and thus our interpretation of a fact) is neither absolute nor forever: it depends on boundary conditions, this happens everytime, even a thermometer allows for a good relation with the hidden reality of temperature (based on the linear relation between temperature and the elongation of metals)inside a given range of application, if I put a thermometer into boiling water it does not measure temperature anymore, simply it breaks down.
This is the reason why in statistics we refer to measures (and the names related to measures) as 'proxy' that is a contraction of 'proxymate' something that is 'near' to the observed reality but not the reality in itself....the difference between a thermometer and a Morris water maze is that we can know in advance the range of functioning of a thermometer while in Morris water maze we can know only a posteriori.
Marcel
I don’t know whether “science can work without having access to (unnecessary) details” or not But, I do know that human used techniques (not technology) in historical past which later explained and discovered by scientists quite recently. Animal-cross breeding for desired characteristics of animals, grafting for better and good fruits and bring trees closer by fastening with ropes for bearing more fruits without knowing Mendel’ law or pollination.
In fact, the problem lies in concepts of linearity and symmetry underlying scientific thinking.
Hello Ismael,
'I would ask Marcel if it is possible to have different bird-nest classifications depending of what we want to study: shape, materials, season, nest purpose, size, etc. Or if a nest taxonomy must necessarily take into account different research approaches.'
YES, I think so. It's like 'Genomics or Molecular Ecology' or 'Phenotypics and Phenotype Ecology'. Classifications will/might change with the molecular/phenotypic markers considered. The question then is, which markers to be selected to reach consensus about classifications given there are xxxxxx options for selection.
Example: At one extreme, each individual is unique in physical expression when the whole genotype or whole phenotype is considered. At the other extreme, all living beings share what chemists name 'C' (although each C may be unique in expression following Heisenberg principles...
Marcel
It is interesting question. Since I come from technical field, I normally is not affected to that extent. In my field all I need to find is what physical principle needs to be applied for explanation. What happens if a different principle is applied and what appears to be more logical. There is less of a confusion except there are multiple possibilities.
But you really make a great point in relation to wildlife. Absolutely there is no direct relationship with any of these observations following a scientific principle, unless you really make a very large number of observations the way Charles Darwin did. Probably a simple way could be catalog first what all types of interpretations could be given for a type of behavior. Then for each type of interpretation we could develop the possible consequences, either unique or varied. If unique then life becomes simple. However when it is not unique we need to find a solution for each of the consequence. If somebody develops such a mapping and makes it available for the researchers, then it would be possible to rationalize. I don’t know how complex it is.
Dear Nageswara,
Why do you think that the question affects less a technical field? If you see a red bridge, why is the bridge red? Because of 'functional' or 'aesthetic' reasons?
Marcel:
The reason is in my field of work, I will not be using any visual observations, but mostly observing consequence of doing things as part of interactions. So that way they are concrete things. For example when I use a tool what is the temperature or force variation. Some observation may be a color change of material because of the temperature as a phenomenon behind. I had less opportunity to see what you would normally do by way of observation in wildlife.
So you would say that you study 'causal interactions between your actions and consequences for material'. Is it be possible that what is perceived as 'causal interactions' can be interpreted in different ways or not?
It is a matter of 'scientific marketing', please keep the copyright for me :)
As I have understood the very nice observation that Marcel did is present in all disciplines of the scientific world. I had the same question some years ago, since although I was reading about the same 'phenomenon' I was reading such a large set of terminologies that it was obvious the effort to taxonomy the real effect to the discipline followed by each author! After many - many such similar article-processes I decided that it was just for promoting reasons: The Econometrician was presenting its explanation, the Theoretical Statistician (I don't mention all the different branches) was writting his/her view and so on... Of course I don't think that we have to always try to fit the reality to our studies... sometimes it just does not fit!
I agree that this is a very old question. One of the more detailed debates in this regard centered on the work of the Logical Positivists in the last century. For the positivists, observation was everything, and there should be reference to theoretical entities that involved interpretation. Thus, there was no need for a concept such as "atoms," instead there should be just descriptions and analyses.
Perhaps the strongest argument agains this position was based on the "theory ladenness of facts" i.e., that we always observe from some point of view and set of beliefs. Hence, every observation involves interpretation, and many in this camp would say that the any brain-based use of physical perception is itself an act of interpretation.
So, from a philosophical point of view, the interpretivists basically won this round in the ongoing debate. But to say that interpretation is inevitable doesn't answer questions about the value of either minimizing interpretation or being as explicit as possible about it. In other words, "objective" observation can remain as a norm or orienting principle, so that we do as much as we can to reduce interpretation (which is basically the position of what became known as Post-Positivism).
Marcel
Sorry for the delay in response,busy with something else in the department. Yes there are other possibilities that can cause the expected transformations. But each of such possible causes are well documented based on some secondary observations. So the researcher need to be careful in identifying the cause, explain the cause and if necessary prove by secondary observation/test/experiment that it was the cause. Of course there still are cases where researchers do miss the real cause if they are not thoroughly familiar with all the phenomenon.
Marcel,
opinion exists, that birds are higher on the staircase of evolution, then people.
How do You think?
With best regards,
Eugene.
Dear Eugene,
good question. I don't know. Each individual living being is unique in physical expression even today, despite millions of years of evolution.....
Marcel,
For the cases of animal behaviors, we have to try the best we can to describe the situations and events from the point of view of the animal. The pionneer here is Von Uexkull. Trying to describe the world from nowhere point of view is impossible. So we have to try our best to describe it from the point of view of the actors.
Hello Louis,
There are so many things to describe that people have to make choices in what they wish to describe. Making these choices should logically be based on the fact that people have already ideas in mind or not?
Marcel,
See the Sherlock Method for making choices. Section 4 of
http://gestaltrevision.be/pdfs/oxford/Koenderink-Gestalts_as_ecological_templates.pdf
What has been seen after the experiments is called OBSERVATION and conclusions and discussions based on observations are called INTERPRETATIONS.
Louis,
yes, Sherlock observes the scene and comes up with a first idea to explain it (first interpretation) being the basis of new questions guiding new biased searches.
Interesting, all these down votes. Why? Arguments? Probably not?
Let's start again:
When scientists describe (natural) phenomena during oral presentations or in publications, they often replace the description of these phenomena by interpretations of what the phenomena are without having sufficient background knowledge of how and why these phenomena exist. Consequently, exactly the same behavioural expression (e.g. a bird is approaching a feeder) can be defined in different ways (e.g. risk-taking, feeding response, boldness or shyness, exploration behaviour, etc..). Should science terminology be based on what is observed or the interpretation of what is observed?
Any system or phenomenon can’t be studied in terms of that system (the observed variables). This is done at a higher level system (science, sciences), which in its own terms explain the observed variables of the lower level system (the observed variables). Therefore, the observed variables are interpreted in terms of a higher level system (science, sciences).
@ Eugene, of course not, observation and experiment is not the same. Experiments, survey etc lead to Observations and interpretations are drawn from observations :))
Regards.
Down voting!!! Wow, someone is probably disliking our discussion !
Dear Jaya,
or the down voter/down voters is/are extremely smart without telling why!
Cheers
Marcel,
I don't understand, how can You devide observation and interpretation. Observation without higher level mental activity impossible.
Regards,
Eugene.
Hello Eugene,
I think it depends on the scale of analysis and perception.
a) Observation generally equals interpretation because observation depends on perception and perception obviously causes biased interpretation
b ) Observation A might equal interpretation A, B, C, D etc. as revealed in oral or written expressions across individuals trying to explain what they observe.....
We shall never know induvidual better then object of observation.
Marcel,
interpretation begins with the choice of object of observation. In common object is Nature.
With best regards,
Eugene.
I would venture that observations are made by the individual, interpreted in the context of that individual and thus form that individuals understanding.
Having a firm idea of where, why or what a phenomenon is leads to initial interpretation (what I think now) and represents current understanding, and unless this basis is clear, then we are ill prepared to make further 'scientific' investigation - as C. LK says above: we 'get lost in trying to define'.
Language has a big impact at this stage. If we perceived people as potentially open-minded, we could simply say 'I think'. We have a critical peer group to live up to though, so we might say 'My current understanding is that ...'. Trying to validate ourselves often makes us search for terms that are more (pseudo) scientific terms (see AB above).
As AB also says, 'Until this scientific “paradise” we should use the old imprecise interpretative terminology': We don't want to appear ill-thought out, unscientific, or on some form of 'lesser plane' than our desired peer group, so we are loathe to say honest things such as 'I don't know', I haven't figured it out yet, 'I don't understand' .... so we fill these mental gaps with words (seldom the actual concepts) that look good. Like a second hand car though, if the argument or claim is given a decent knock, then the filler falls out and the holes are revealed.
We are however human and it is in our instinct to observe, appraise and re-evaluate our perceived environment. To validate these observations to ourselves is often all too easy ... un-critical belief. To show others that what we have observed is actually 'true' needs a description that makes this clear to the audience, hence we search for ways that 'prove' this beyond reasonable doubt ... science has become used as rhetoric. I use words and terminology as much as the next man (or woman), but one thing I am careful of is that some big word or concept I use cannot come back to bite me in the **** at a later point. Hence I use terms such as 'may', 'could', 'might' etc .... some may see this as being indecisive or non-committal - I simply call it being honest (it shows things as I currently understand them, but indicates that this may not be the final word on the matter).
As C.LK says above, there are a huge amount of possibilities out there and they change all the time. Our personal observations simply reflect what we can see or comprehend in the present, so 'observations' is a good term. However, how we 'interpret' these observations (& those of others) needs open and careful thought ;-)
Dear P.,
does this imply that you observe the phenomenon differently when you have more or less background knowledge? For instance, when there is one plumage of species A in a bird nest of species B, people might focus on that plumage from species A but only when they have an idea in mind about the role of plumages from species A in nests of other species? How much people not familiar with research on bird nests would observe and pay attention to the fact that one plumage of species A would end up in the nest of species B? Do people ignore details about a phenomenon (e.g. one plumage in a nest) when they have no idea in mind why the phenomenon exists?
Some people claim they cannot stop thinking. This would imply they also think at the time they observe. What are the potential consequences for empirical research?
I also think it is best to refer observational aspects in science discussion rather than to evolve description from conceptual and theoretical aspects. as already pointed out conceptual understanding is incomplete, thus though objectivity can be sought and accomplished for description, interpretation devoid of observational character cannot pretend to be unambiguous or objective, can even lose complete physical basis when history deletes initial observation and application.
I have come across two works in philosophy discussing this matter (links given below along with that to my own presentation);
1) a discussion of representation from percpetion- the author sides with an 'internalist" view that content from sensation is all that exists to objects, i.e. they are and no further that what is 'seen' ("Varieties of representationalism and their approach to sensory experience"): http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/PPR/article-abstract/62F17B843664
2) a discussion of belief that concludes that it is from the empirical strictly and has no relation to the mental or psychical. Belief is simply a construct of experience of the world that can be neither experienced completely nor equally individual to inddividual ("Self Knowledge and the Transparancy of Belief").. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/self-knowledge-and-the-phenomenological-transparency.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0014.008
3) my own work in which I express the opinion that if there are experiences that can vary individual to individual (i.e. of trees)that there is a common composing element , distance or volume, (e.g. physical) for which there exists a universal truth(about forest, of trees ). I follow to demonstrate a universal shape that serves as a prison of volume that has nothing external to it (Determining the Determined State : A sizing of size from aside/the amassing of mass by a mass): http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/PPR/article-abstract/51B4FE541410
Dear Marvin,
Perhaps a discussion which can be expressed in a whole article or a few simple sentences focusing on an example:
Do you mean that people share or not share experiences, just depending on the details of what is observed. For instance, everybody would agree that tree A is taller than tree B, but some observers will be more precise in how much the two trees will differ? In addition, two observers will never be at the same time at the same spot which may create consistent observer differences in what is observed?
Marcel: My real beef is about abstraction, two persons may apply learning and the observations of others when discussing a common topic, but for instance the application of concepts that have lost their original physical connections to the topic leads off the map....i.e. if discussing the height of trees to refer.for analysis and application to the concept of 'height" in general that can have at its' roots Newtons gravitation taken from the topic of an apple falling from a tree or equally the height of a structure with respect to ability to support weight originally evolved by the ancients about architecture.... the forces upon a tree and how it grows will diverge in concept from that of the other description and analysis. ..the slow path of growth of a tree may not reflect from abstraction about forces looking in a reverse direction, or apply to have a coherent logical connection to the phenomenon of trees. One might not wish to build supports for bridges to be erected on the moon from concepts surviving activity to invade foreign castles. We might not want the bridges in the same kind of places; maybe not any bridges at all if it is feasible and just as efficient to walk, though distances are longer but effort and energy requirements less or there is no need to conquer heights or depressions. The worst case involves the theory of relativity that escapes altogether connections of the senses to the physical. Examples are hard to produce because the lesson itself involves 'being there'. Experience is always specific and cannot be anticipated, the world reduced to an exact physical order.
Each experience is unique in time/place and therefore cannot be anticipated in all its details. What is the importance of memory in anticipation of a future that is unique in physical expression?
Dear colleagues!
Science, as well as human thinking as a whole, is egocentric and pragmatic enterprise by definition. The problem is that our observations are always selective and interpretations are not unique. Therefore, predictions are probabilistic. Nevertheless,
objective reality exists and may be totally deterministic. Determinism is connected with our vision of time.
With best regards,
Eugene.
Perhaps I would think: If everything results from cause-consequence relationships, everything is deterministic, of which only a small fraction is (currently) accessible to the human scientist wishing to make predictions about the future....
Dear Marcel,
Are we living in a Platonic world and think we deal with the so called modern science and look for arguments on the rules of shadow?
Have we troglodytes ever seen the sun not to speak on birds?
Hello Andras,
I think we always use proxies (shadows) to describe/study phenomena... If you have examples against this statement, please give 1 convincing case!
Dear A.,
good question. I don't know because I'll have to use a proxy to study a shadow.
OK?
Marcel: " If everything results from cause-consequence relationships, everything is deterministic,..."
I think this is where science faulters at the perspective "cause and effect". Common to anyone is the concept of contingency that rules the world. ...cause and effect is the product of, is "caused" by contingency. ..contingency "causes" contingency, so contingency is 'what is' 'determined' and is unchangable. From this perspective the question 'What causes a tree..? still is difficult to answer..requires many words and extended reflection. I think that all of the things basic to nature are also represented physically, the philosophy might not have the slightest connection to the study of the tree, other than to mean that its' study cannot be accomplished using abstractions such as compose the philosophical argument. The study of anything can be undermined with demands to avoid generality...it is a matter of common sense how far such demands can be applied. ..there would be no structured physical study possible. In my own philosophies the velocity of light cannot be constant, the world has a primary constructing shape, but all the pieces for any situation are necessarily not findable or knowable. Though I think the speed of light is variable, measuring with any possible method would not be able to discriminate the two possibilities; for practical purposes the value used as a constant has to be applied. The real difference, and makes a difference, is how the mind reresents things in concept...makes the difference of what we do and do not do with respect to nature.
In your discussion of the study of trees, there is one prominent aspect, there is but one familiar thing that might be called, by humans that are but one familiar thing, a tree...it doesnt look possible in that situation for one to speak of apples while the toher is speaking of oranges, what might arise to question are conclusions of particular experiments, inately open to surface and challange. I think the real question of terminology observation and interpretation can be broken down further to include the variable "familiarty". Terminology gets stretched when understandipng is stretched, divided between philosophical and physical, to capture the "unfamiliar". Anyone might agree that the world is captured in total by 'eggs', 'trees' and "reproduction", yet one might discuss from a perspective as if inside the body, cell, sperm or egg, and proceed to call the world a bed of information based on terminology evolved from different than ordinary perspectives...there is a real problem when such terminology is translated to life experience, I do not think there is there a method to bridge perspective that also fits a category= "information"? As an example a physicist might reply to this question with "Lorenz transformation" , one can envision such terminology catching hold, other than observation oriented is militaristic entailing force to effect change e.g. the question addressed in this discussion.
Wow. To add some remarks for discussion.
1) I also was thinking about the speed of light this afternoon before I saw your message. I don't think the methods available are refined enough to truly test constancy. Scientists think it is constant probably for convenience, but I don't think you can really show it with the methods they have? How many figures after the comma do you need to describe something as constant? If every phenomenon in the world is unique in physical expression (like photons) at any time and any place, this should also be the case for light, no?
2) To philosophically describe a tree as detailed as possible, you need an infinite number of terminologies to describe it, probably involving all terminologies defined in physics, chemistry, biology, cell biology, botany going from the strings or fermions or bosons in physics up to the observed external surface reflecting shape, colour, etc etc...?
Marcel,
A pianist is playing and you observe the music being played and you have to describe what you observed. The most factual description is a recording of the air pressure signal. Another description is the musical score. This is much simpler and structured and abstract description but all that is specific to this pianist performance has been lost. There are thousand of ways you could describe this performance. What will determine your choice is the type of study and theoretical model that you have in mind. The description that you will choose has to be relevant to this model. That being decided, you will imagine what is the most relevant data supporting it. So these data are collected on the basis of what is being supported and it is the only way for you to know what data to collect. The separation of experimentation and theory is a fiction.
When inspectors investigate a crime scene for evidences in order to discover who committed the crime. They collect all kind of data. But most of these data will never be actually used in the court and will be useless for the investigation. The inspector do not examine objectively these data and comes up with the criminal except in very simple cases where the finger print or the DNA lead directly to a criminal already on file. The inspector looks at the evidences and soon in the investigation focus on a small number of likely scenario/hypothesis and collect data based on these hypothesis, return on the crime scene for futher data collection specific to these likely scenarios and then judge the fitting of these scenario. Science is done that way.
Inspiration source:
Gestalts as ecological templates
by Jan Koenderink
Section 4. The Sherlock Method of imposing meaning on chaos
http://gestaltrevision.be/pdfs/oxford/Koenderink-Gestalts_as_ecological_templates.pdf
Marcel: " How many figures after the comma do you need to describe something as constant?"
I do not really understand the declaration of a constant speed of light....is beyond verification or falsification. Einstein thought the theory of relativity was falsifyable but I do not see how it can either be proved or falsified ....is world view that evovled in many stages to very finely approach to expain, but not the only possible world view. The challenge is one of appearing truthfulness and is philosophical. My objection to relativity are its axioms, it assumes the existence of light and proceeds to derive the rest from it. I think it is mass, or simply number that is axiomatic and from which the rest is derivable. To start, in allegory I equate light with reasoning, I think is a sound parallel, and argue that the masses create light, reason about masses, shed light on masses, themselves. Einstein never succeeded with his theory, I think because he had the same perspective I am advancing, in some formulation remained incomplete though not by those who followed him and with whom he took strong issue that still exists.Is another example of terminology and observation that involves history rather than science..Einstein most likely did not reflect on or use terms like "universal consciousness" but if you look in Wikipedia it reads Einstein believed in "Universal consciousness", or if he said in expression "god does not throw dice" he is being religious. What does the truth or universal truth as it is questioned through today have to do with the truth and place of Einstein; Einsteins theories come from Einstein, involve only him and his historical/physical setting, not the universe, everyone has the same universe. There is contemporily a pronounced lack of discipline and professional acuteness overaking common sense...if everyone has the same universe, advancing ones scholarship will not improve it, too much abstraction in definition can decrease it. The men and woman who compose society need to know the world from where their feet stand and hands engage, the universe remains eternally present in all and does not need terminological elaboration and refinement. There are some artists who travel to the brush and construct fantastic sculptures, but in running water in which it is washed way...seems illogical, but it is the practice with the hands that builds the mind, that carries a lesson un-losable. I think there is just too much emphasis on accomplishment entailing directly endeavored scholarship. Is a matter of choice for individuals, but I do not think college study should be a necessity or requirement for everyone. No one can assume the responsibility to define, create terminology, for common use. Monetarily, a carpenter makes as much or more than a college professor, may not need even a technical school but an apprenticeship....the uneven distribution of wealth?, like terminology and observation needs the correct foot first.
Dear friends,
In the philosophy of science, the topic that you are discussing is known as the "theory ladenness of observations (or perceptions)" My google search pairing the words theory and laden produces 25,000,000 hits.
The basic idea is that all perception is influenced by prior beliefs, and that there literally is no way to take the brain (i.e., interpretive function) out of the process of observation. And all measuring instruments are constructed and read according to belief systems.
This doesn't mean that there cannot be agreement between observers, only that we can never eliminate the possibility that the agreement is due to shared beliefs, rather than an underlying "objective" reality.
My own favorite response to these issues comes from the American branch of philosophy know as Pragmatism, where the emphasis is on the relations between beliefs and actions. Thus, rather than arguing about abstract beliefs (or the possibility of direct observations) , the key "test" is to convert one's observations into actions and predictions about actions. In this view, we can never know with certainty, but we can move forward based our ability to act with predictable outcomes.
Louis: It might be surmised that there are both judicial/political and scientifc behaviors that are entirely inconsistent with acquired knowing about the nature of things based on common sense. ..always made from'still' images. A criminal can be prosecuted from the image of location,weapon, and crime from conceptions that ignore entirely inclinations and available routes to motions, dispositions....the suspect akin to a computer program that calculates loudly to himself planning each step from a master plan rather than one serendipiduosly towards doors that happen to be open on the ocassion of his actions. It is coming to light in systems studies that the factors and individuals with the most influence are usually not known and activities appearing coordinated from a central headquarters usually have none but external factors that align behaviors. Society knows when it executes an individual that it is killing/committing murder involving either an innocent or guilty person. Countries know, as it is common knowledge in social sciences, that imposition to declare a language the officlal language of a country and force jurisdictions to comply, limits diversity and hence fertility. As an example, the Canadian government sought to impose English as the national language and to impose its public use on provinces where French was predominant. Scientists must know that imposing a constant velocity of light declares a closed condtion on the world that is arguable to be incoherent philosophically in not so many steps of reasoning.. .....all of these examples are fit to still accountings and/or movie projector compatible in which suitable renditions can be created by splicing the filmstrip appropriately. Remaining an engima is the lack of awareness of real latitudes available for actions to sustain and promote rather than detract. If a state confines physically to subject a person to death, it is not the state that can declare whether or not it is a criminal, but nature. History looks almost like a drunkard that does not consider beyond the next day, while at the same time doing so does not look to be so demanding and sacrificial. Observation based practicality has to supervene over created terminology. Common inclination and respect towards verboseness and rationality should not evolve to dominate criteria of familiarity that otherwise involves many other factors including non verbal behavior and physical familiarity of individual, environment and setting. The world can simply without many steps in reasoning be claimed to be (has been for extended times) unusually violatile when authority both contradicts and imposes on behavior centered around common sense, yet we still see, as if in a chess game, theory, terminology, verbose rhetoric, idealism applied to justifiy the motion of powerfull pieces around the board.
Authority like money fills both need and means towards an end but 'means' and 'authority' must both be justified by the courtroom judge. A common awareness seems to be apparent, even from more affluent quarters but failure still occurs in higher legal/judicial quarters from errors, error made from a drift from established principals. A court cannot need to depend on on science terminology, i.e. the need for a definition for 'gene', to relate (generalize and catagorize) behavior to decide on the common good. Animal breeders since the dawn of civilization have known and acquired a workable handle on something fishy going on in the background without verbose highlighting and defintion to raise a light on whatever that is, to require uncontestable but deceptive proof that neither blunt confrontation with, (unless one is a sage with the wisdom and ability of Solomon, able to defend himself with the ability of David verses Golliath), or acceptance further orders a chaotic world; proceeding (excuse the pun) is nothing but a war of terminology verses observation.
Evident to me, I was once a student to the PhD level in biology, is that advanced education does not necessarliy impart practical understanding or explanatory power. I once had to appear in court for a speeding ticket, told when asked that I was studying biology and the judge replied "which came first, the chicken or the egg?'.The judge dismissed the case but I thought he a simple jokester, though my thoughts later came back to the question; I might put the judge among the list of the most influential persons in my scholastic pursuits.
Marvin,
I agree with you that advanced eduction does not necessarly impart practical understanding or explanatory power. Education become powerfull for those who can use it to transform practical understanding, understanding of the body into theoretical one. The court of laws need credible rational scenarios that are corroborated by facts while in reality the actual scenario was not rational.
Louis: " The court of laws need credible rational scenarios that are corroborated by facts while in reality the actual scenario was not rational."
Life really isnt rational either, but jurisprudence is given logical and coherent means to decide in a rational matter if it has acquired wisdom: if subjective and objective are not divorceable from one another as science pretends objectivity, then it is alone singly the humanity, awareness of the judge that has justifyable rule.
Louis to add: there is no actual senerio, all is physically within the court; cognition itself is a mirror off the forest, the forest defines it, and the trees act accordingly with valid representation in the well studied and order mind that recognizes and understands the meaning when artificial divisions are established.
Science has gotten a little cocky with it predictive successes, nneds to take a breath to reflect on universals and existentials: i.e. the chicken egg paradox is universal and eternal regardless of what is surmounted otherwise: certain pursuits when reflected on from aphilosophical perspective might fall into that realm. a large fraction of the men today are sired by Ghangis Khan...meglomania is a cultural trait that is some world regions is barely noticed...the mind needs to become informed to know itself and reflected behavior accordingly.
Even the smartest people in the world will only use what they observe and perceive to construct their perceived organisation of the world, and what they observe and perceive will depend on their limited/biased living environment (office, garden, family, friends, colleagues, local culture, etc...).
Perhaps spiritual connectivity among people (e.g. conscious or unconscious telepathy) may change bias in the experienced individual living environment and therefore may change the individual perception of the organisation of the world?
This is a great topic.... I share András Bozsik statement to some extent... Certainly, there is an enormous need for improving scientific interpretation. But, in my opinion, science will always be a human activity... it is useful to explore and understand our universe, but nevertheless, still a human activity. And therefore, science will be always be susceptible of personal interpretation, interests, culture and so on, never completely objective. Science as a non-personal influenced activity can only exist in books... it is an utopia.
Certainly we will report what we observe according to ordinary life experience in which new revelations and divisions can grow with age in slow steps. I think obseravtion in reporting should be kept as concise and simple as possible without the influx of appende ideas about things to stress spontaneous reflexive relations to description. I am very skeptical about things like taste or flavor in physics..Consolidations may seem to capture and express, but while seeming to broaden they may be only falsely simplifying and can instead narrow views from which communications will degenerate if carried too far.
Observation is what we perceive during scientific experiments/trials and its interpretation lead to logical explanation and conclusion. Scientific terminologies can be based both on observation and its interpretation.
Indeed, terminologies can be based on both, but there might be a problem with inappropriate use, e.g. in the wrong context, e.g. when there is a mismatch between the observation and the interpretation?
Thus an observation is always a mental interpretation of a stimulus passing the eye? For instance, the color orange is not more than a mental interpretation based on what the (blue, red, green) receptors transmit to the brain?
Mental interpretation of an observation: The biology-based brain-perception structure is the hardware (differing between individuals) whereas the education/culture is the software (differing between individuals)?
dear All
what I teach and practice is
When you do an experiment you observe changes
that is observation
now you have to understand what is happening
understanding the observation
our duty is to understand
Lawyers duty is to interpret the laws
see the difference
we observe we understand and explain to others of our observations and then
explain them what is happeimg
Dear V.,
And if we would say:
When you do an experiment you interpret changes....
Understanding is the interpretation... or vice versa the interpretation is the understanding
With interpretation you explain
Interpretation is subjective; observation is objective and, therefore, more adequate--dear Marcel!
Dear @Marcel, 50 down votes under this thread! I do wonder how ResearchGate allows such unethical behaviour! It's so sad!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science