🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10292316.69870.6891@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>> I am talking about a different phenomenon.  What I am saying is that,
>> assuming that the speaker and hearer have reached the same interpretation of
>> the original statement, when that interpretation is later falsified, they do
>  
>in other words they have acknowledge that they understood each other..  
>  
>> not thereafter always discard the statement entirely.  Instead, they change 
>> the level of precision at which the statement is interpreted.  Neither need 
>  
>would they still talk about 'interpretation' ?  

Is that a critical point?  They might.  I would, in that situation.

>> have considered this alternative interpretation at the time the statement  
>> was made, but they will fall back to approximately the same interpretation. 
>>   
>> I think this occurs with at least two kinds of statements: hyphotheses and  
>> observations.  Not only scientific hypotheses have this kind of property; th
>  
>you mean reports of observation according to the frame-work of the theory..  
>  
>> hypotheses of a detective investigating a crime will behave the same way.  
>>   
>> For observations, the fall back occurs because observations are known to be 
>> imprecise.  A person can easily think he saw something slightly different  
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>> from what he actually saw.  A small discrepancy is generally assumed to be  
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>  
>intelligence rejects such a sentence:  
>> he saw something slightly different from what he actually saw.   
>     ^^^                                                    ^^^  
>it should read:  
>He saw something slightly different from what he expected to see, according  
>to the theory...  

You are mis-parsing the sentence (which I admit is subject to
misinterpretation).  Your restatement is completely wrong, however.  A
better one is:
What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he
actually saw.
No theory is involved here; just a perceptual error.

>Because; "observing" is
>Roughly this: putting oneself into the most favourable situation to   
>receive certain impressions with the purpose, for instance,   
>of describing them. [LWPP 7e]  

Ah, now I understand.  You misunderstood my use of the word "observation". I
was using it in the sense of a statement reporting a perception.  I did not
mean to suggest scientific observation.  Please try again.