🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #830

Re: Which theory before observation ?

#830
From: Gary Merrill
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07
41 lines
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!sasghm
References: <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