Fidel Scratching His Head
-
Did you use AI to generate those bullet points ;). AI LOVES bullet points. Also, I feel like that language doesn't sound like you, but I guess I could be wrong on that.
If it's a cateogory mistake, that's exactly the mistake I was referring to that you made. You said:
So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken. But how likely that is that the case?
In the above you state that one could be tricked or fooled but how likely is that to be the case? That's the category error. To quote your AI generated response again to refute yourself: "The statement conflates the likelihood of an event with the nature of the event itself." "The likelihood of a mistake is irrelevant to the definition of a mistake. "The statement may also imply that considering the likelihood of an event is trying to redefine what constitutes a mistake, which is misleading."
My statement: _"A mistake is a mistake no matter how likely or unlikely one determines it to be."
_How likely was it that Newton was wrong? 100%. He was wrong, that's why Einstein could improve the theory. And, Einstein is 100%, our current theory of gravity is in the process of being re-written by theories about quantum gravity. Just as Newton's laws would fail for projects like using orbiting satellites for things like GPS, so to will Einstein's laws be for whatever novel technology we come up with that take advantage of the theory that replaces his.
In your example of an observation about the car crash, how likely is it you were wrong? But we can never know with 100% certainty. Even if you are right about it being a car crash, we can never be 100% sure.
Care to respond to the other comments?
Because the "theory-laden" phrase may be confusing, another friend suggested discussion a rephrased version with the same meaning in mind:
all observations are idea laden
-
Fidel, I'd say you had the best theory about what the red stuff covering the kids head was. It could have been ketchup but you're familiar enough with cars, human bodies and how they interact with each other to deduce that it was probably blood. A person with less experince wouldn't be so sure.
I'm not sure you'd call that a scientific theory but, in any case, you had it in mind before you made the observation. Your theory about it being blood was tested and held so I think we can trust it.
It's good to see that everyone agrees that our senses aren't perfect. I think we all know enough about logical fallacy and self-deception to know that the human mind isn't perfect either. We've focussed on observation but I actually think the thing we're getting caught on is differences in thinking about what (and more confusingly, where) theories are.
Can you each talk about what definition of 'theory' you're using? Then maybe we can figure out a way to include both of those concepts without getting them confused.
-
“Did you use AI to generate those bullet points ;). AI LOVES bullet points. Also, I feel like that language doesn't sound like you, but I guess I could be wrong on that.” – Cody
Yes and no. I was about to explain it myself but I decided to grab the Wikipedia page, since I was going to link it anyway, and asked ChatGPT to summarize the Wiki content based on your statement.
“If it's a cateogory mistake, that's exactly the mistake I was referring to that you made.” – Cody
I didn’t make a category mistake. I stated an agreement with you (“So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken.”) Put a period and then segued to a question (“But how likely that is that the case?”) because that very question is at the core of my decision to eat a steak because, in the situation I described, the likelihood of it not being a steak is so extremely low, the idea never enters my mind. When the likelihood of being mistaken is higher, it can give us pause before making choices or acting/refraining from acting after observations. In common, daily human life, we consider likelihood in order to avoid mistakes. You see the relationship?
“How likely was it that Newton was wrong? 100%. He was wrong, that's why Einstein could improve the theory. And, Einstein is 100%, our current theory of gravity is in the process of being re-written by theories about quantum gravity. Just as Newton's laws would fail for projects like using orbiting satellites for things like GPS, so to will Einstein's laws be for whatever novel technology we come up with that take advantage of the theory that replaces his.” – Cody
Now we’re not talking about common, daily human activity. Now we’re talking about a specific discipline of science. In any case, I would caution you of reading sensationalized science journalism. Newton’s theories remain valid to this day for what they are able to explain. Einstein expanded with new theories where Newton’s begin to break down, as you explain here. In the same way, Einstein’s theories remain valid but go only as far as where quantum physics picks up. None were “overturned” or “mistaken”. Neither Newton nor Einstein claimed their theories accounted for everything in the universe. Likewise, you will not find a single physicist that will tell you Newton’s formulas were a mistake. Same with Einstein’s. They are valid for what they do explain, not invalid for what they don’t.
“In your example of an observation about the car crash, how likely is it you were wrong? But we can never know with 100% certainty. Even if you are right about it being a car crash, we can never be 100% sure.” – Cody
Why do I need to be 100% sure? That’s just silly. Car crashes are common enough, I’m familiar with what they look like. Bleeding is not uncommon in serious injuries, and magicians and illusionists haven’t been known to be hanging around every street corner with car crash tricks. I’d be confident enough to put it in writing, give you access to the scene, send you hospital reports, videos, photos and any other relevant evidence. Because my claim is falsifiable, you can attempt to falsify it if you like. I don’t need to be 100% sure. Can you sell me on a reason you think I should be 100% sure before stating my claim(or reporting what I saw to the police)?
“Because the "theory-laden" phrase may be confusing, another friend suggested discussion a rephrased version with the same meaning in mind: all observations are idea laden” – Cody
Yeah. So I was thinking before about what the issue was. “Theory” seemed to be a word that you’d swap between definitions. While seeming to be on a “scientific” part of your explanation, it would come back in the colloquial sense of the word. So for now, “idea” is a good step in removing that confusion for me. Thanks. But if I were to say that observations were laden with anything, it wouldn’t be ideas, hypotheses or theories. I would say confidently that observations are question-laden; What the hell happened? Why is there glass everywhere? Who was driving? How long until the police arrive? Where is the other driver?
In daily life, we’re not submitting our report for peer-review in science journals. I don’t need to be 100% sure of everything. I can, however, be confident enough to give a clear account to the police officer.
Within the various disciplines of science, being wrong is part of the job. Being right wins Nobel prizes.
-
_"We've focussed on observation but I actually think the thing we're getting caught on is differences in thinking about what (and more confusingly, where) theories are.
Can you each talk about what definition of 'theory' you're using? Then maybe we can figure out a way to include both of those concepts without getting them confused." - Josh_
I think Cody and I are just about to iron that out.
- In the colloquial sense, it means conjecture, speculation or opinion based on incomplete information.
- In the science usage it means a hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing and scrutiny, and emerges as the best known explanation for a phenomenon(or in the context of this discussion an observation)If we were totally talking about common daily human life, without scientific descriptives, it would be totally normal to use "theory" in the colloquial way. (i.e. Richard had a theory that his neighbor was Yakuza because of all the security cameras around the house.)
In most disciplines of science a "theory" comes at the end of the line: Observation > Forming Valid Questions > Hypothesis Formation > Prediction > Experimentation > Analysis > Peer Review > Validation and Replication > Theory
-
I want to expand just a bit on this statement I made...
"Now we’re not talking about common, daily human activity. Now we’re talking about a specific discipline of science. In any case, I would caution you of reading sensationalized science journalism. Newton’s theories remain valid to this day for what they are able to explain. Einstein expanded with new theories where Newton’s begin to break down, as you explain here. In the same way, Einstein’s theories remain valid but go only as far as where quantum physics picks up. None were “overturned” or “mistaken”. Neither Newton nor Einstein claimed their theories accounted for everything in the universe. Likewise, you will not find a single physicist that will tell you Newton’s formulas were a mistake. Same with Einstein’s. They are valid for what they do explain, not invalid for what they don’t." - Fidel
Newton's theories did not break down because they were wrong. They were found to have limitations(i.e. speeds close to light, black hole shit, etc.). And that's fine. He didn't have to know everything. They same holds true for Einstein's theories. They're not wrong. They are just limited in what they can explain. Both of these guys may have openly conjectured some stuff beyond their theories, or even based on them. But those never attained "theory" status.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Einstein vs Newton - Who Was Right? (youtube.com) (six short minutes explains it!)
-
We're just talking past each other, I agree with Josh regarding our use of the word theory.
But, I don't agree with you that we're 'just about to iron that out', we're not even close to being on the same page, which is totally fine. Fun even. So, please answer three questions.
First, just to confirm:
1. You still don't agree that "all observations are theory laden," right?
2. What is an observation?
The car crash observation you provided doesn't even sound like an observation to me, it's an explanation made up of a bunch of interpreted observations. It's entirely constructed of theories. You've got to know what a car is and what a person is and what blood is and so on. If you put a newborn baby in front of a car crash, how much of it are they going to be able to describe like you did? They haven't even figured out how to use their eyes yet, why? Because they have to create theories about how to do that first.
You had to make a whole bunch of guesses to even get to the "observation" you describe. Observation in scare quotes because I don't think most people would use this definition of "observation," but I think that's fine, we don't need set-in-stone definitions, I can work with what you've got. So, I tried to pick apart and separate it out by talking about the senses you used and interpreted in your "observation". So it sounds like we both weren't talking about the same thing when we say "observation" let alone "theory." So, you also mention "assessment," and we never came back to that, either.
To try to get back on the same page, before Josh's reply, I asked how about if we rephrase to:
"All observations are idea laden." But now I think you mean something totally different when you say observation as well. So that probably won't work either. So let's forget my definitions entirely and just work on yours, because I'm having a hard time understanding you.
If "observation" to you means your combined interpretation of sensory input. What are the elements that make up observations? When a photon enters your eye and hits a rod or a cone and that changes the biochemistry of the cell causing a chain reaction of molecular interaction and sending a signal for interpretation to your brain. This is what I am trying to get at when I say "observation".
3. Given your answer to number 2, what are observations made of?
-
“But, I don't agree with you that we're 'just about to iron that out', we're not even close to being on the same page, which is totally fine. Fun even. So, please answer three questions.” - Cody
Oh, OK. I thought you would abandon the colloquial use of the word “theory”. In which case, we could have had that ironed out.
“You still don't agree that "all observations are theory laden," right?” – Cody
Correct. I do not. Scientific theories do not magically or naturally exist in an act of receiving input to the brain.
“What is an observation?”
I accept the dictionary definition; the action or process of closely observing or monitoring something or someone. Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source.
“The car crash observation you provided doesn't even sound like an observation to me, it's an explanation made up of a bunch of interpreted observations. It's entirely constructed of theories.” – Cody
It fits the dictionary definition. Wait a minute, are you trying to say scientific theories, as in the laws of nature, are at work with everything that is being played out and, thus, observed? If that’s the case, then I can ride that bus with you. That make completely more sense if it’s phrased explicitly like that.
“You've got to know what a car is and what a person is and what blood is and so on. If you put a newborn baby in front of a car crash, how much of it are they going to be able to describe like you did?” – Cody
A fresh and wet newborn baby won’t be able to describe anything.
“They haven't even figured out how to use their eyes yet, why? Because they have to create theories about how to do that first.” – Cody
Babies don’t need to create theories about how to use their eyes. Healthy eyes naturally gain eyesight as a product of stimuli from the environment. The baby need not consciously engage in any hypothesis making. It’s all physiological and neurological. In a normal environment, a normal baby doesn’t have to do anything except open her eyes several hours a day.
“You had to make a whole bunch of guesses to even get to the "observation" you describe. Observation in scare quotes because I don't think most people would use this definition of "observation," but I think that's fine, we don't need set-in-stone definitions, I can work with what you've got.” - Cody
Hmm. I am pretty sure I have been using the dictionary definition. Everything else I’ve written has been consistent with that definition.
“So, I tried to pick apart and separate it out by talking about the senses you used and interpreted in your "observation". So it sounds like we both weren't talking about the same thing when we say "observation" let alone "theory." So, you also mention "assessment," and we never came back to that, either.” - Cody
We’re on the same page about not being on the same page. LOL
“If "observation" to you means your combined interpretation of sensory input…” - Cody
Hold on right there. What you just wrote here makes the rest of your question moot because I did not say or mean that observation means “combined interpretation of sensory input”. No. Those are separate. Observation is ONLY the act of taking in sensory input. The interpretation comes later and occurs in the brain. That interpretation may come in milliseconds(i.e. a red light at an intersection recognized by an adult driver) or later(subliminal messages).
But I am talking about scientific and physiological observation. Not the colloquial observation which is like a casual remark or comment based on something a person noticed(“I’ve noticed that you always wear blue on Mondays.”).
-
"So an observation to you is the photon hitting the sensor? In this case the photon hitting the rods and cones?" - Cody
I made this myself. I think it answers your question.
observationdiagram.pdf (allsimbaseball1.com) -
Ok, so you’ve got “stimuli detection,” some physical thing interacting with a sensor. Pretty much what I said. Cool.
So, without all the stuff there, there’s nothing to detect. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. 1 is listed as 1, and it’s what I’d call observation. But, it only happens if all the other stuff is there first. So the numbers are out of order. The other stuff are what I’d call theories.
If a photon hits a table, there’s no observation, because the table has no theories. If a photon hits a table it will probably never do 1-7. And even if it starts doing the other things you listed as 1-7, saying “the table observes because it was hit by a photon a bunch of times,” explains nothing.
Now I get the feeling that you’d like to call these things something else. What would you like to call them?
-
Dude! You don't just get to turn neuroscience upside down and change the definition of "theory". LOL. That's not how science works. Those numbers are in the order that is already established in neuroscience. Stimuli detection is not observation and making a mixed salad of 2 thru 7 doesn't make them theories.
"If a photon hits a table, there’s no observation, because the table has no theories. If a photon hits a table it will probably never do 1-7. And even if it starts doing the other things you listed as 1-7, saying “the table observes because it was hit by a photon a bunch of times,” explains nothing." - Cody
And of course a table isn't going to do 1-7, That's ridiculous, man! There are no tables in neuroscience.
"The other stuff are what I’d call theories." - Cody
What's wrong with what they're already called?
"Now I get the feeling that you’d like to call these things something else. What would you like to call them?" - Cody
I'll stick to the terminology in the diagram I posted.
-
Having read David Deutsch's book, seen several videos he's in, plus Karl Popper's stance on the scientific method, I have never come across anything from them that resembles what you're arguing for, much less the liberal repurposing of vocabulary. Then again, what is it you're arguing for? Let's say I bought what you're selling. What's next? After one is enlightened, what/how should they live? Howz' about we just skip to that!
-
I’m not Popper or Deutsch. But both of them and I agree on the epistemology. We all agree that “all observations are theory laden.”
This is a Popper direct quote, one that David Deutsch uses in both his books.
That’s what we’re discussing.
And regarding “you don’t get to turn [such and such] upside down,” is an appeal to authority. Authorities can and are often wrong, very wrong—and binding everything up into simply established “neuroscience” doesn’t explain where the things came from that do observation, where brains and sensors and such come from.
The sensor comes before the particles it detects are detected. But, you seem to want to make me feel like I’m all alone in saying that. But, the difference between us is that my epistemology actually supports the overturning of established theories by single individuals—because the guesses (theories) that lead to later observations, and which falsify our prior best guesses, have to have happened in one person, first. Even if I don’t think I’m alone at all on this, being alone isn't a good argument as to whether or not an idea that individual shares is right or wrong.
On the theory-ladenness of observations. Take black holes, as I have used this example before. No one observed them before they were theorized to solve a problem and then a test was also theorized for how to detect them. How did we observe them without observing them? What I’m saying is that that’s how ALL knowledge growth happens. And “all observations are theory laden” is pointing at that explanation of knowledge growth.
Even in nature observations are theory laden. Here’s another example. Genes have a replication problem, so a theory is made (light sensitive spots mutate in some early organism), and then it is attempted to be falsified (in this case through natural selection, those with the light sensitive spots are able to spread their genes better). Now the sensor exists to make the observation.
To say that observation precedes theory is induction.
Overturning the mistaken theory of induction, which practically everyone is now forced to learn in school (“the scientific method” that starts with observation), was Popper’s primary goal! The misconceptions of induction, that is, of what knowledge is, where it comes from and how it grows, is impossible. Again, to say observation precedes theory is induction. Hume already detailed Problem of Induction, one can't just point to observations as the cause of their own observation. Again, we have also already talked about. This is why I claimed you are a crypto-inductivist, because you acknowledge that it's not magic, but then provide no explanation for where the means to observe come from. Instead you just say "do the science," "shut up and calculate," which is instrumentalism, by the way.
If you don’t like my words, perhaps gamble with ChatGPT by asking if Popper wrote “all observations are theory laden,” if Deutsch agreed with that, and if they think that the scientific method starts with observation. But, even if you suddenly change your mind, it won’t be because ChatGPT told you so, it will be because you first made a new guess/conjecture/theory, or whatever you want to call it.
-
Cody, LOL(I actually can't stop laughing). Here's what I got...
You
Who said “all observations are theory laden,”?
Copilot
The phrase “all observations are theory-laden” is attributed to the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. He argued that our observations and interpretations of the world are influenced by the theoretical frameworks and paradigms we hold. This idea is a key component of his work on the structure of scientific revolutions.
You
Can you make sense of that for me?
Copilot
Sure! The idea that “all observations are theory-laden” means that when we observe something, our understanding and interpretation of what we see are influenced by the theories, beliefs, and knowledge we already have.
For example, imagine two scientists observing the same phenomenon. If they have different theoretical backgrounds or paradigms, they might interpret the same data in different ways. One might see it as evidence supporting their theory, while the other might see it as evidence against theirs.
This concept highlights that our observations are not purely objective; they are shaped by our prior knowledge and assumptions. It suggests that science is not just about collecting data, but also about interpreting that data within a theoretical framework.
-
Nothing of what you're preaching fits this description. However, what copilot says makes sense and doesn't overturn established neuroscience.
Copilot
Thomas Kuhn was concerned with the idea that “all observations are theory-laden” because it challenged the traditional view of scientific progress. According to Kuhn, science does not progress linearly by accumulating theory-independent facts. Instead, he argued that scientific progress occurs through a series of paradigm shifts, where the dominant theoretical framework or “paradigm” changes. -
Kuhn is talking about olden days scientists doing science independently and coming from different disciplines which themselves have their established theories applying them to the observations. He's arguing for the following...
Copilot
Sure! Here’s a simpler explanation:
Science doesn’t just move forward by collecting more and more facts that are free from any theories. Instead, Thomas Kuhn argued that science advances through big changes in the main ideas or “paradigms” that scientists use to understand the world. These paradigm shifts happen when the old ideas can’t explain new observations, and a new set of ideas takes over. So, scientific progress is more like a series of big leaps rather than a smooth, straight path.Like I said about Newton and Einstein above. When their theories hit a wall, new scientific theories took over. However, their theories were not chucked out the window. They fit nicely in their own domains.
One consistent thing here though is Kuhn is talking about "theories" in the scientific sense, he's talking about scientific progress and he's talking about scientists. He's not talking about Joe Blow on a street corner watching a car accident. It's also clear he's using "observation" in the colloquial sense, as in what the scientists were declaring not as in the act of observing. But that's fine in the scientific context here because then it makes the phrase "all observations are theory laden" make sense.
-
By the way “you don’t get to turn [such and such] upside down,” is NOT an appeal to authority. It is a reminder of who has the burden of proof. An appeal to authority goes something like this...
"Dr. Smith, who is a renowned physicist, says that climate change is not a serious issue. Therefore, climate change must not be a serious issue."
-
"Modern scientific theories come at the very end of what is a VERY long process." - Fidel
Theories are not the end. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains a lot more than Newton's law of universal gravitation but it still yeilds plenty of currently unanswerable questions. We haven't even come up with theories about how to answer some of those yet. To say it's a "VERY long process" is an understatement. It is an infinitely long process. There is NO end.
But, we're talking about the beginning and scientific theory isn't the that either. It's a step in the scientific method. The scientific method itself is a theory about how to explain what's happening. Just as general relativity provides explanations that Newtonian physics couldn't, the Popper/Deutsch method provides explanations where the (now classical) scientific method can't.
It doesn't mean the scientific method is useless any more than it means that Newton's laws are useless. It just means that we have a more expansive and inclusive framework with which to make further observations. To put relativity into practical use, we just had to get comfortable with using terms like "black" to mean "not directly observable" and "hole" to mean "something that it seems should exist there". Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use the term "black hole" in a discussion without someone yelling, "that's not what 'black' means."
My point is that you and Cody are each using the term 'theory' in multiple ways throughout the conversation and until we come up with a way to distinguish between them, the conversation will continue to be unnecessarily labored.
Nothing too fancy. I mean just putting the words 'black' and 'hole' together gave us the perfectly adequate 'black hole' as a concept handle.
-
I am an idiot on many topics, including all the stuff in this thread and especially philosophy of science. But being the armchair(or in an alternate universe a real) lawyer, I am very good at spotting and avoiding logical fallacies. I know them inside and out! LOL.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login