Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)
ElliPhant
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 18 (102755)
04-26-2004 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
04-26-2004 12:58 AM


Re: restating is not reinforcing
please explain how a theory on redshifting would change the appearance of the evidence?
observing what appears to be red shift depends on many assumptions. assuming our theories about light to be correct, assuming our theories about the nature of space to be correct assuming the theories used to build every single piece of equipment to be correct, we make this observation. thus theories influence the appearance of the evidence.
all of these assumptions are probably very very reasonable. it would be a waste of time to attempt to disprove any of them because it's probably not possible... but you never know.
perhaps it seems like i'm being too picky... I guess I'm just a pedantic kind of gal'
I did some searches but couldn't find any good sites about Quine or Duhem. oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2004 12:58 AM RAZD has not replied

  
ElliPhant
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 18 (102756)
04-26-2004 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
04-26-2004 1:49 AM


Then we'd know our eyes didn't work either, because they're based on the same optical principles.
Assuming of course that our theories on the way our eyes work are correct. what if our eyes work in a completely different way than we think we do? it seems fair to assume that our theories about our eyes are correct, but it is not a certain thing. The telescope was only an example of an instrument, all instruments are based on theories. even naked eye observations assume that what we see is actually what is there. it may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption.
Observation is theory-laden, but not in the way I think you think. Theory shouldn't affect the outcome of an observation, if you're observing properly, but theory can affect the observations you choose to make.
but we can only ever say that what appears to be the result of an observation is dependent on a very large body of assumptions.
does this make any difference most of the time? absolutely not. but one day it MIGHT. and you can never be 100% certain. that's all I'm saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-26-2004 1:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 04-26-2004 5:42 AM ElliPhant has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 18 (102758)
04-26-2004 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ElliPhant
04-26-2004 5:22 AM


Assuming of course that our theories on the way our eyes work are correct.
It's the same theory as the telescopes (and no, saying that isn't a "theory".)
it may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption.
And yet if it's wrong, we'll never know.
Asking "what can we know?" is a great question, so I'm glad you ask it. As is "how can we know we know what we know?" But when you hit the point where there's no way to tell between knowing something and thinking you know it (like how there's no way to tell the difference between knowing reality is real and just thinking it is) it's time to stop, because a difference that is no difference is no difference. It just doesn't matter at that point.
but one day it MIGHT. and you can never be 100% certain.
By definition of the terms, I can know for certain that there's no way to distinguish between "real" reality and a perfect simulacrum (it's tautological). If it's not perfect, then the scientific method will reveal that.
All bases are covered. The scientific method can discern all that is discernable. Nothing can discern that that is indiscernable. So what's the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ElliPhant, posted 04-26-2004 5:22 AM ElliPhant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024