NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4749

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 1.8 KB | 39 lines

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!psych.toronto.edu!christo
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <schiller.726487694@hpas5> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726741786@hpas5>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:04:52 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <schiller.726741786@hpas5> [e-mail] (schiller c) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>
>>The fact that you put the question by requesting an example of how
>>a theory is necessary to observe something indicates a lack of
>>understanding and sensitivity to the real issues.  I don't need a
>>theory to observe *something*.  But to say (in a coherent manner
>>and with a clear intersubjective sense) that *what* I have observed
>>is an *electron* requires substantial theoretical superstructure.
>
>
>No. It requires only to show that what you see here is the *same*
>as what you saw in your previous experiments. No theoretical structure
>is necessary, just the list of jour previous observations.
>
As with your your use of "similar" in an earlier posting, the term "same"
does all the work here, but is ill-defined. Which features are relevant
to two observations being the "same"? Certainly not *all* of them. Presumably
they are allowed to take place a different time, and in different places.
They can be observed by different people. So how much the "same" need they
be?

--
Christopher D. Green                [e-mail]
Psychology Department               [e-mail]
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1