Lecture Three Observation

Science, Technology and Society 1 2T 2011-2012

Distinguishing science
What distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry?

How do we sidestep verificationism and falsification?

The Unified Method

Observation Recording information Classifying according to subject matter Extract general statements or laws
Via induction

Deduce statements from laws Verify deduced statements

Via further observation

Come up with theories to account for laws

The scientific method

Does this method give science its privileged status? And, is this really a foolproof method?

Focus on the first step in scientific investigations: Observation

Observation

Observation = Includes all the senses

We always observe patterns, structures, etc. (unified phenomena) and not bits of information

Issues on observation
Is there objectivity in observation? And, is observation theory-free? Is it really the starting point of scientific investigations?

Issues on observation
Does it provide an unbiased means by which we test scientific theories and hypotheses?

Recall: Relationship of observation with theories and hypotheses:

Observe Systematize what we observe Come up with general principles

Issues on observation
Does it provide an unbiased means by which we test scientific theories and hypotheses?

The theory-independence or neutrality of observable facts makes them a suitable foundation for scientific knowledge, or at least for testing theories

Activity on observation
Activity: See the relation between observation and theory (or hypothesis)

Perform the first few steps in the scientific method:

Observation Recording information Classifying according to subject matter* Extract general statements

Observing observation
In trying to come up with a general statement about this certain phenomena, why do we have different results? But what about other kinds of phenomena? Is there another way of accounting for the difference in results?

Problems in social science

Psychology has named a number factors that affect observation:

Depends on what you hope to see

The state of the observer affects what is observed

Are these problems limited to the social sciences?

Theory-ladenness
How expectations, previous experience, training, etc. influence the categories by which we observe objects, events, processes, etc.

Norman R. Hanson

Pioneered the idea of the theory-ladenness of observation Reading: Patterns of Discovery

Patterns of Discovery

The case of two microbiologists:

Artifact vs. Golgi body Standard explanation: They see the same thing, of course, but they just interpret it differently

Argument for this standard explanation:

Same visual data = Same observation

Patterns of Discovery

Further, consider the case of Tycho and Kepler Do they see the same thingthat is, the sun?

Yes: Both have the same retinal picture (similar photons, iris, etc.) What if they are hypnotized, drugged, drunk, or distracted?

Patterns of Discovery
No: Seeing is an experience, and experiences are not physical states

There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball

Cameras and eyeballs do not see; people do

Patterns of Discovery

Another example:

Tycho and Kepler are put in a dark room, and are asked to report what they see

Would they report the same thing?

Yes!? No!?

Patterns of Discovery
Consider Fig. 1, do we seethat is, experiencethe same thing?

Further, do we just interpret Fig. 1 differently?

Patterns of Discovery
We can be visually aware of the same object, but the ways in which we are visually aware of it may be profoundly different Ordinary experiences of Fig. 1 do not require visual grist going into an intellectual mill Theories and interpretations are there in the seeing from the outset

Patterns of Discovery
There is never pure observation, absent some conceptualization or other

As an experience, observation always involves some categorization

Observation is not a two-step process

Seeing is always seeing as

Observations (1) themselves are not objective; it (2) cannot serve as an objective starting point

Science and Subjectivity

Scheffler agrees with Hanson that:

Observation is not incapable of being expressed in words Observational description are not certain Observation does not occur in isolation from some conceptualization Observation is alterable by conceptual change

However, Scheffler argues that what we observe is not determined by conceptualization

Science and Subjectivity

Problem: Observation needs to be dependent and independent of conceptualization

Independent = Objectivity, but observes undifferentiated given

Dependent = Observational control (or awareness), but no common or objective observation

This standard notion presents a false dichotomy

Science and Subjectivity

First step: Breakdown the notion of conceptualization by distinguishing:

Concepts, general terms, categories, classes, vocabulary, etc.

Propositions, statements, hypotheses, body of assertions, etc.

Concepts are not propositions

Referring is not equal to asserting

Science and Subjectivity

Conceptualization links up concepts with hypotheses

Concept: Conceptualization gives an idea on how to categorize or sort items

Hypothesis: Conceptualization gives an idea on why items fit these categories

How are books arranged in the library?

Science and Subjectivity

Conceptualization = Alphabetical filing system

It does not determine in advance how any particular letter will be sorted. What other analogy could we use?

Standard notion of observation and objectivity

Categorization = Objectivity + Observational control

If observation is not objective, then shock, reorientation, etc. should not be possible

Science and Subjectivity

Categorization does not determine the categorical assignments of any particular item, or class of items, yet to be encountered

Special anticipations may, however, be expressed by a suitable hypothesis (i.e., predictions)

Science and Subjectivity

Our categorizations and expectations guide by orienting us selectively toward the future; they set us, in particular, to perceive in certain ways and not in others.

Yet they do not blind us to the unforeseen. They allow us to recognize what fails to match anticipation, affording us the opportunity to improve our orientation in response to disharmony.