Fidel Scratching His Head

[cozy]

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?

[snoopy]

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.

[snoopy]

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!

[snoopy]

@Josh, are you catching Cody's drift? Maybe you're getting it and I'm not. If so, maybe you can bridge the gap.

[cozy]

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.

[snoopy]

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.

[snoopy]

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.

[snoopy]

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.

[snoopy]

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."

[Josh]

"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.

[snoopy]

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.

[snoopy]

"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." - Josh

You are right. It should be more like this...
"Modern scientific theories come at the very end of what is a VERY long project _but part of an endless process" - Fidel

_We could call it process, but perhaps "project" is better since the scope is defined and falsification can eventually end within that scope, but the process is the big picture.

[cozy]

Kuhn may have said it, but he said it after Popper, but AI doesn’t understand much about stealing and proper attribution, does it? Hence why I said “gamble with ChatGPT,” it’s just that: gambling with the words that make up explanations rather than understanding them and creating new ones.

It looks like Deutsch understood accurate sourcing though. (Page 10 of my copy)

But we both may agree with Josh that the process is infinite. Though you rejected that early by claiming the periodic table was nearly complete. What part of infinite don’t you understand?

Also, I prefer “problem” over project. Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble and solutions lead to bigger problems. Happiness is being in the process of solving a problem you want to.

[snoopy]

"Though you rejected that early by claiming the periodic table was nearly complete." - Cody

I never said it was complete or nearly complete. I said it wasn't wrong.

"Kuhn may have said it, but he said it after Popper, but AI doesn’t understand much about stealing and proper attribution, does it? Hence why I said “gamble with ChatGPT,” it’s just that: gambling with the words that make up explanations rather than understanding them and creating new ones." - Cody

I cross-referenced with Wikipedia. Kuhn was one of three strong proponents of the thesis. Pierre Duhem was the first to implicitly put forth the idea, not Popper.

"Also, I prefer “problem” over project." - Cody

Fine.

"Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble and solutions lead to bigger problems. Happiness is being in the process of solving a problem you want to." - Cody

In this sense, I prefer "questions". Questions are inevitable, questions are answerable and answers lead to bigger questions. Happiness is being in the process of answering a question you want to.

In any case, read below...

Although Thomas Kuhn, Popper et al., were applying the statement “all observations are theory laden” to the state of affairs in the scientific community, and not the average Joe on the street as Cody is attempting to do, I think there is a common ground I can find for us where we apply the principles to the average Joe as Thomas Kuhn applied them to the scientist. I will attempt to do so in 2 parts; establish terminology and definitions which will apply throughout the explanation, introduce examples to illustrate my way of understanding Cody.

**Terminology
**

In order to avoid confusion, I will not use the word theory because it lends itself far too easily to two definitions that can leave red paint where blue paint goes. Instead I’ll use a super simplified synonymous term “connect the dots”. Since both in the scientific sense(i.e. Einstein’s calculations in math) and in the colloquial sense (a police detective pouring over crime evidence) they are literally connecting the dots.

In the place of “observation” I’ll use “reach a conclusion”. This can be easily used in both a scientific sense and colloquially with the same meaning.

In Science

Sam, Bob and Dave are Scientists. Sam is a meteorologist, Bob is an astrophysicist and Dave is an astronomer. Because they come from different disciplines of science when the see a bright light flash across the sky they all reach different conclusions. Sam says it’s lightning, Bob says it’s a supernova and Dave says it’s a pulsar. According to Thomas Kuhn, this is what he means when he says “all observations are theory-laden”. Or using my kid words, “All conclusions reached are full of dot-connecting.” because all three of them are starting from different dots(scientific theories) based on their fields of science.

For The Average Joe

Joe, Tom and Steve are just regular dudes. Joe is a war vet, Tom is a lawyer and Steve is wealthy stock trader. They all encounter a situation where a gunman is threatening to kill them...

Joe’s dot-connecting begins with his military training and reaches the conclusion that he must fight and disarm the gunman to survive.

Tom’s dot-connecting begins with his negotiating background as a lawyer and reaches the conclusion that he must talk the gunman out of killing him.

Steve asks the gunman how much money he wants.

As Cody talks about problem solving, each of our characters here reached different conclusions as to how to solve the same problem. They reached different conclusions because they started from different points based on what they know and past experiences.

In my conclusion, no pun intended, is that the statement “All conclusions reached are full of dot-connecting.” is a way of mapping Cody’s “all observations are theory-laden” onto regular Joe Blow life, with the caveat that Kuhn, Popper and Deutsch weren’t talking about regular Joe Blows. But I think it gets me to Cody’s zip code, so to speak.

[cozy]

I think we're still on different planets, maybe even different solar systems.

But, the weird thing is, you do seem to have come around to "all observations are theory laden," but only when Kuhn says it? That strikes me as odd. Technically speaking, Popper stole the concept from from Hume. Which is why I keep mentioning the Problem of Induction. Which you haven't once commented on.

Kuhn and Popper had a famous debate, by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn%E2%80%93Popper_debate

I stand firmly with Popper. I think Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions was historicist. From Wikipedia, "Popper saw Kuhn's ideas as dangerous because they created theoretical laws out of trends that were not testable. It was a type of historicism based on the adage that history repeats itself." A mistake that Marx made as well. One that leads to pessimism, post-rationalism, postmodernism and so on because it makes self-fulfilling prophecies.

"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement," Popper said. On the contradictions between the theories in people's heads. The REAL problems people have, not just the problems scientists have. That means not just the examples you gave, but also whether or not Twinkies are healthy. Or whether or not keto is just a fad. Or whether or not Biden is fit for office. Or if there are actually multiple universes. And so on.

So on to whether the periodic table is wrong or not. It is wrong.

A periodic table that's missing an element is wrong. There are known unknowns regarding the periodic table—we know there are elements not listed, for one. But also, elements are made of subatomic particles which we don't know everything about. When we have more understanding of quantum particles and their interaction, we may find that an entire re-write of the periodic table is better. We may find that there are other aspects to quantum particles that no one has thought of yet, and that may, yet again, lead to a completely new periodic table. So, no, the table isn't "right," it's the best explanation we have, but that doesn't mean we have to concede that it's superior. Again, what part of infinite don't you understand?

[Josh]

"Instead I’ll use a super simplified synonymous term “connect the dots”." - Fidel

Doesn't this compound the very problem we're trying to solve? The problem was that one term - 'theory' - was being used to refer to at least two different concepts. Now we have two terms - 'theory' and 'connect the dots' - that both refer to two different concepts.

Maybe one word is all we needed after all. Where exactly is the line drawn between the theories of Joe Scientist and Joe Blow? You gave two contrasting examples but don't they each occupy an arbitrary space on the same spectrum?

"In the place of “observation” I’ll use “reach a conclusion”. - Fidel

Please dont.

[snoopy]

"But, the weird thing is, you do seem to have come around to "all observations are theory laden," but only when Kuhn says it? That strikes me as odd. " - Cody

I don't even know who Kuhn is. I told you I checked Wikipedia. I'm trying to make sense of the concept and I found a source that attributed it to him. You mistakenly said that I got bad information from ChatGPT, which was not the case. Again, I don't care who said it, I care about understanding it.

"Which is why I keep mentioning the Problem of Induction. Which you haven't once commented on." - Cody

Like I said, I'm an idiot on this stuff. I don't know what I'm being presented with, much less can I comment on it.

"A periodic table that's missing an element is wrong." - Cody

Wrong? I think you're conflating incomplete with error. The periodic table is a compilation. You may find an error one day with a part of what's there, and then again you may not. that doesn't make it "wrong". Your wife says to you "I bought milk today". You check the refrigerator and see the milk but there's also a new pack of butter. Do you turn to your wife and say, "You're wrong!"? No. Her statement is error free. It may be incomplete, but we can verify that milk was indeed purchased.

There is no statement that is all inclusive of all things in the entire universe that is complete. That doesn't mean that it's wrong. Otherwise, we get nowhere. "The earth orbits the sun." "Wrong! You didn't mention Mars or the other planets!" sounds crazy.

"So, no, the table isn't "right," it's the best explanation we have, but that doesn't mean we have to concede that it's superior." - Cody

LOL. Okay. Let me know when you find a better one! I'll stick with it until such time.

"Doesn't this compound the very problem we're trying to solve? The problem was that one term - 'theory' - was being used to refer to at least two different concepts. Now we have two terms - 'theory' and 'connect the dots' - that both refer to two different concepts." - Josh

No. It was the only way to remove "theory" and replace it with something that CAN be used interchangeably. Otherwise, it can't be applied to the average Joe.

"Please dont." - Josh

No choice. I needed to dumb it down for myself because the word observation was not the scientific use.

[snoopy]

Don't take this as breaking the rule of posting after myself. I just want to take a back seat for now and let Josh go back and forth with Cody. No need to reply to my last post. I'm just gonna eat popcorn and see if Josh is getting it, and then maybe Josh can clear up what I'm not getting. I'll be quiet for now.

[Josh]

There's a lot Cody and I could go back and forth about but I don't think the statement, "All observations are theory-laden" is one of them. I'm entirely comfortable with that concept and entirely comfortable using that statement to describe that concept. At first it sounded a bit jargony but I personally can't think of a more accurate and less jargony way to put it.

'Observations' is the subject of the statement so naturally we want to understand that first. But, since that's exactly what the statement aims to do, we should really be trying to understand what 'theory-laden' means. Well, what is a theory?

Maybe it's something that develops in the human mind sometime after a human observes something. Say, for example, that cell theory developed in the minds of people like Matthias Jakob Schleiden after observing organic tissue using a Carl Zeiss microscope.

For argument's sake, let's discuss Schleiden's very first observation of a cell and assume that he had no understanding of biology prior to to that observation. In essence, this first observation of a cell is in no way 'laden' with cell theory.

The observation is still laden with many other theories already in place. Why Carl Zeiss? Because, in the 1800s, Carl Zeiss revolutionized the microscope using optical theory which arose in the 1600s showing that certain configurations of glass lenses could allow humans to make observations at scales previously inaccessable to them. But, while other microscope manufacturers were using the empirical trial-and-error based approach to finding combinations of lenses, Zeiss hired Ernst Abbe to design his lenses using mathematical theory.

Of course, as a botanist, Schleiden did have some prior understanding of biology. Enough to encourage Zeiss to devolop a better microscope so that he could pursue cell theory. And, as a leading proponent of Darwinism, his cellular observations were at least laden with the theory of evolution.

[cozy]

I'd heard of Carl Zeiss, and even own a branded lens. But Matthias, nope. Awesome.

That's a really cool example!

I do think it's difficult to separate out observation and theory, I think most people have combined them conceptually. And I agree that it's pretty difficult to find a less jargon-y way to put it. I mentioned earlier a someone's suggestion (actually Vaden from the Increments podcast): "All observations are idea laden." But, that kinda got washed over and never mentioned.

There's also the "all life is problem solving" Popper quote, which I think pairs well with the one we're talking about. Without a problem, there's nothing to observe—and the weird thing is, except on this planet, that's the natural state of the universe. To put it as Deutsch would “an unproblematic state is a state without creative thought. Its other name is death.” So, another way you could rephrase it is: "All observations are problem laden." Without a problem, there's no need to make guesses and improve. BUT, problems are solved. But part of the solution is first needing to have a problem solved, or else there's nothing to use the solution and the solution, regardless of how it's recorded, will eventually be destroyed (by entropy or whatever).

So, there's also "What is a problem?" Because I think it seems so obvious to us, much like "observation", but we don't even know what that is. There's only one place with problems in the known universe: Earth. So, what was the first problem? Where did it come from? What in tarnation was going on in ye' old primordial soup!?

And once you take this idea that this thing we point at with abstractions like ideas/theories/guesses/problems/etc we know where they come from (evolution and people), but we don't know how they come. But, people have all kinds of mistaken rules they make up to fill that how void. It's obvious that the color of someone's skin has no say on their creativity. But, it's not obvious that the contents of someone's mind ALSO has no say on their creativity. That's one of two mistakes school makes, the second being that you can force observation and induce knowledge creation.

But, my guess is that this idea of observation theory-laden-ness is really useful in figuring how ideas come about. Guess about the physical structure of a thought may help us understand how they come about, and see something we've never seen before: creativity rather than just it's products.

Regarding that, Fidel's diagram is really interesting. If all of that stuff is an observation, than it's clearly made up of a bunch of physical stuff. A bunch of stuff working together. A bunch of solutions working together, exchanging energy through chemical reactions.

I guess we have some good ideas about what the full structure of an observation is, even if we don't know what a theory is. We don't really know how the brain stores *knowledge*. Like, we don't know the physical structure of a memory or a thought, we know where it happens and we know the physical structure of that thing (the brain and it's tendrils throughout our body), but we don't know how a thought works within that. In a computer we have a model of memory, but again, no model of thought.

This is something I think about a lot in my free time, haha. Like, what does a problem look like in physical terms, not just as it's infinite examples we can provide via description. What are abstractions in physical terms and how does that related to the physical structure of universes and so on.

In the case of Matthias, why did he even care about what he saw under the microscope? In the case of Zeiss, before he could even guess about ways to do it, first he had to want to. Why did he want to enlarge the small? And, how can we enlarge that?