Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #830Re: Which theory before observation ?
From: Gary Merrill
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07
41 lines
2809 bytes
2809 bytes
In article <schiller.726741489@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes: |> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes: |> |> >>In article <schiller.726487694@hpas5> schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes: |> >>>My position as a scientist is that facts, i.e. the results of observation, |> >>>are the basis of theories. There are no "well-known" flaws of this position. |> >>> |> >I'm afriad that this is simply ill-informed. The observation-theory distinction |> >has long been a matter a controversy in philosophy of science. The best-known |> >"flaws" are put forward in Putnam's "What theories are not." The position |> >outlined there is a little technical, but the central example is that one |> >cannot establish, through obsevation, that a thing is red unless one has |> >a conceptual scheme for colors that includes red in advance. |> |> You are right: one needs a concept of red. But a concept and a theory |> are two different things. Red is a concept formed by children |> before they are six months old, and it gives a name to certain class |> of colours. When a child says: "it is red", it just says, "it has a similar |> look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call red". |> The statement "It is red" therefore just compares different observations. |> Not much of theory there. |> |> Christoph Schiller |> You are right: one needs a concept of electron. But a concept and a theory are two different things. Electron is a concept formed by physicists before they are given degrees, and it gives a name to certain class of particles. When a physicist says: "it is an electron", it just says, "it has a similar look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call an electron". The statement "It is an electron" therefore just compares different observations. Not much of theory there. I wonder why the physicists need so much more funding than do the children. Facts are facts? -- Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development] SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000 sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<C0p0LA.CpH@unx.sas.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghmReferences:
<C0HLqI.LA@unx.sas.com> <schiller.726487694@hpas5> <C0Jw8r.838.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1993Jan9.161851.28603@psych.toronto.edu> <schiller.726741489@hpas5>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ? Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events) Message-ID: <C0p0LA.CpH@unx.sas.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07:58 GMT References: <C0HLqI.LA@unx.sas.com> <schiller.726487694@hpas5> <C0Jw8r.838.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1993Jan9.161851.28603@psych.toronto.edu> <schiller.726741489@hpas5> Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Lines: 41