I've had one or two run-ins on forums with people who appear to be happy to overlook fundamental issues when they argue. Got into a real brain-drain with someone about experiment and observation. They claimed that astronomy is an example of a science that is observational -i.e. astronomers don't do experiments. I disagree with this view completely. I was surprised when someone who is "supposed" to be a (qualified) scientist disagreed with me and agreed with the "Non-observational Theory of Astronomy". I wonder what I missed in those science lectures? So who thinks a science can be "observational only"? I really don't see how this can be true, it simply does not make sense, on analysis. Check out the high point of our little stoush: /me /them /me /them Still can't see it. They seem to be saying that "trying" to find Pluto wasn't any sort of planned endeavour; nothing was considered, they just happened to have some photos that a telescope took for no particular reason, and someone noticed Pluto. Not because they were "looking" for anything?? Except this person says that they were looking, they were trying to find it, how can this be just observation?
ahh how about astronomy is, in some part, an inferential science what is that? are not all in some part, so? oh do you rule out accidental discoveries? flash in the pan. byproduct. happenstance. whatnot
one more thing, boy. if actual quotes, name and shame (your intent) if not, can the fucking melodrama and just get to the fucking point hey love the phil shit i like to learn welcome
Apparently, the OP is inspired by this conversation at SFN: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=377347
Frud11, I read your OP at the other forum. A similar issue has been brought up here a while back: Empiricism and the roots of faith.
Not at all, lots of discoveries are accidental or serendipitous (though arguably if research wasn't being done, they wouldn't make any "chance" discoveries either). No "accidental" discovery is discovered because it didn't get observed, however. P.S. This is an attempt to try to see why some people can't understand what an observation is. We simply cannot observe anything without changing something, and we always "look" at what happened, not what is happening. Observation is never "instantaneous". This is an idea, though a useful mathematical one; some people appear to be tied up in the notion of the description of something (a method), being that thing, rather than the application of it. P.P.S. this isn't meant to be an attempt to belittle anyone else, either, so the links to SFN are a little OTT. However, they do seem a bit stuck on something over there, I couldn't see it, and got banned for pushing the issue.
But the experiments you're talking about consist of handling and operating different and emerging instruments. So there are two concerns going on, one that has to do with technology, and one that has to do with celestial bodies. The intrinsic achievement of reaching an understanding—and conclusion—of one's field of vision begins and ends at being observational.
Sorry, but that's absurd right on the face of it. As in the example I gave you of counting traffic - there is NO interaction with the traffic and NO influence on it either. And as someone else pointed out to you, observing some distant star through a telescope has NO influence on the star, either. I fail to see why you are maintaining this totally ridiculous position. :shrug: It's painfully obvious that it's incorrect.
I'll put it this way: You seem to be too philosophical for them. If you push it too far on this forum, you might end up with a similar fate like Reiku.
So the discovery of Pluto was "reaching an understanding" of what telescopes and cameras could do if you built them and pointed them upwards? For whatever reason (you thought you would look for people living on the moon say)? How can someone "not interact" with traffic by observing it? How successfully can you "hide" the fact that someone or something is observing? You simply cannot, as I say, observe anything (at all) without perturbing it. The light that your eyes collects (from anywhere at all) is perturbed when electrons in the pigment molecules in your retinas "absorbs" it. A photon becomes an electrons "momentum", and ceases to be a photon of light. Its energy is conserved, however. There is (absolutely) no such thing as an observation which is "independent" of what is being observed. Nor is there any such thing as an "instantaneous" observation: we cannot (nor can any other living thing) observe in zero time, or with zero effort. P.S. we don't have to observe "distant" objects for them to be real (trees, the sky, the moon, stars), but at the other end of the scale, we do. This applies to photons (little packets of light) too, these photons arrive randomly from the atoms on the surface of things we see, but in sufficient numbers that we see solid things. So if we slowed time down enough, nothing would look solid at all, it would take a while for a image of anything to arrive on the retinas of our eyes. In other words: "many experiments require close observation at every step of the way", probably should say "...any observational experiment". i.e. everything we do, except... well, something or other. (ghosted)
Apparently you have NO idea how foolish you are making yourself sound!!!! Making a simple traffic count in NO way affects the traffic itself. In fact, many traffic counts today are taken by passive machines and over CCTV. In the latter case, the drivers in traffic cannot even see the viewers, probably don't notice the cameras and have no way of knowing IF a count is even being done. And here's yet another very good example. The wind was rather strong here today and once in a while I looked out the window to observe just how far the trees were swaying. Could you - with any form of intelligence engaged - claim that my occasional observations had ANY effect whatsoever on the trees or the wind??????????????? You seem to think you are talking about quantum effects here - did you recently read a book on the subject? While it's true and excellent science on the extreme micro scale it does NOT apply to the macro scale - which is what we've been discussing. Give me a break - you've been talking nothing but sheer nonsense!! :bugeye:
So, you're trying to say that observing precludes will? That if you are actively directing your sensory apparatus then it's not observing but rather experimentation? What purpose does this odd definition serve?
Indeed - it seems to be. I really think that he's recently read a book on QM and has totally misunderstood it to the point that he believe it applies to everything - regardless of scale. And he's deluded to the point that, referring to his topic for this thread - that he doesn't realize that it's US who are conversing with gross ignorance - HIS! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow. Astronomy is primarily an observational science. Meaning that it primarily relies on observations. Of course, the basis for understanding observed astronomical phenomena is experimental. As informed by the likes of Galileo, Newton, et al. In modern astronomy, computer modelling also plays a huge role in understanding what goes on out there. This, imo, is a form of experimentation. But astronomy, as compared to say, particle physics, is primarily observational. We can't really go out and mess with the conditions of a binary star system in the way we can mess with a particle in an accelerator. However, if you consider the huge variety of binary star systems (and any other things out there) as natural experiments, then you could make a case for a somewhat experimental view of astronomy. But it is in no way an experimental science as compared to something like quantum physics. As for influencing the outcome as an observer, the classical view is that this is not a problem. I can easily observe traffic without anyone knowing it or even suspecting it and can justly make the claim that my results were in no way influenced by "interaction" with the traffic. In QM this is clearly not the case. The experiment and the subject of the experiment are considered one interacting system.
Well, along with the others here, I have to disagree. You really need to consider the scale of what you are observing and the effects of photons bouncing off of the observees. My first question to you would be, how would you incorporate the effects of photon interactions at the quantum level into your analysis of traffic patterns in the greater Chicago metropolitan area? What would your charts and trend analyses look like? Would you add ten billion lines of code to your traffic simulations for describing the quantum states of the surfaces of cars (would ten billion be enough?)?. Why or why not? And don't doubt that I could place cameras that would be undetectable to any drivers on the highways. You see my point.
