Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Mrs.B commented on Neil Weightman's group Atheist Cat Servants
1 hour ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Katharine Hepburn. A grand lady"
10 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Interesting Loren. Thank you"
10 hours ago
Loren Miller posted a blog post

What Happens Next Time?

Surprises generally only work ONCE, especially if they are UNPLEASANT surprises or worse, hostile,…See More
11 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"How could any Lord have made this world?... there is no reason, order, justice: but suffering,…"
12 hours ago
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Hannah
""Happy Birthday!""
20 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTMQ: It's Not In There"
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTM: Walking On Water"
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part I"
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part II"
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTM: God's Match Profile"
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTM: It's A Relationship (ft. Mr. Deity)"
22 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"The lord works in delirious ways. -- Aron Ra And all it takes is a cursory look at the Old…"
yesterday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Lauren Page
""Happy Birthday!""
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"I am an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we…"
Monday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Olive Lane
""Happy Birthday!""
Monday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Isn't it interesting that religious thinking and psychosis are so closely related you…"
Sunday
Onyango M replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Speechwriting for the Pope: Suggested Draft, Farewell Remarks in the group Quote Of The Day
"Jean Messlier's final prayer or war cry is unmatched. There are few like him. I think the…"
Sunday
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Speechwriting for the Pope: Suggested Draft, Farewell Remarks in the group Quote Of The Day
"Jean Meslier offers a comprehensive read!"
Sunday
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Speechwriting for the Pope: Suggested Draft, Farewell Remarks in the group Quote Of The Day
"l like your dream! Alan always has a vivid imagination! As does Emma Goldman. "The…"
Sunday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

detached observation: the key of knowing in science

observation is the first stage of science.lets check this observation:

we have 2 types of observation:

1] participant

2] detached

in participant observation the observer interacts with the subject. suppose if the subject is flower, in participant observation, the observer uproots the flower, cut it, manipulate it and observe and then form a theory. for this type of observation the observer needs a lab.

for  the sake of discussion lets call theory thus obtained is theory A

in detached observation, the observer simply watch the subject. in our previous example, the observer simply watch a flower born in the branch of a tree, grow and die. then observer forms a theory. here the observer does not need a lab. nature itself is his lab.for  the sake of discussion lets call theory thus obtained is theory B

there is a common thing in 2 types of observation. that is in both case there will be no pre-conceived notion.

now there will be a lot of difference between theory A and theory B. theory B will be more practical and accurate than theory A because theory B just observe things AS THEY ARE  while theory A  manipulates things and observe things AS IT WANTS THEM TO BE.

therefore theory A does not show the reality. only theory B shows them which originates from detached observation.

today science forgets detached observation and uses participant observation and as a result produces peculier theories. science needs to change its base i.e observation process. it must use detached observation instead of participant observation.

what do you think?

Views: 2531

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think science works in both modes.

I also think both types of observation can be skewed by the observer's agenda(s). Science doesn't necessarily exclude bias, it just checks for it as thoroughly as possible.

But hey! I'm just an artist =)

A lot of what we do in science cannot be done without interfering with the object of study. That does not mean that the results of lab experimentation, whether in physics, chemistry, or biology, do not correspond to reality! Provided that you follow the scientific method, produce repeated observations that can be also replicated by other scientists, this is your best bet to learn about the world.

If we had stuck to your "type B", there would be no medicine, for example, and no quantum physics, and no chemistry. Causing perturbations and measuring the effects of these perturbations, and making predictions from models, ans formulating new hypothesis, is the bread-and-batter of science.

As Michel said, both types of observation are needed. In any cascade, it is a false dichotomy because in many cases, the type of observation is a continuum, a mix of both.

Also, no observer is completely neutral, we are humans and we interpret, by definition; scientists have emotions just like any other person; if we didn't, we wouldn't be passionate about what we do, and if we didn't feel this passion, why would we become scientists? The great thing about science is that we know that biases exist, cognitive biases, cultural biases, etc., and by using the scientific method, we try to minimize these biases, also by correction; science does not give 100% certainty, everything is constantly being reworked on the basis of new data.

 physics is the study of nature. why physics needs a lab to study? can't we go outside, in the midst of nature and study it without event interrupting it? see it AS IT WAS.

why biology will need a lab? we can go to the forest and study life AS IT WAS. why bring life itself to the lab, twisting the life so that it lost its entire reality?

i don't find a reason why we should need participant observation to study biology and physics. in the past philosophers like Plato and Aristotle did not have lab like ours but still they wrote great treaties on nature.

also how come scientist be emotional? emotion will cause him overlook some valuable info. for example if you love something, you will not find any fault of that thing and if you hate something you will not find any good of that thing. such is the way our mind works.

Schrödinger's cat died from being observed with too much detachment.

COMMENT OF THE WEEK!

well you may take this as joke but interfering with the subject always distort the reality.

you know police investigation uses detached observation. they sealed everything in the crime scene so that every element of crime scene remain AS THEY ARE without distortion or movement or interference.this is another example of detached observation.

science on the other hand believe in manipulation of subject in the lab.how fair those scientific observation are?

...interfering with the subject always distort the reality.

Physicists build colliders to check how particle A interacts with particle B in the real world - and they have to interfere with matter a whole lot to achieve this. And yourself, aren't you distorting reality each and every time you look into a mirror to comb your hair? These distortions are still an integral part of this reality you seem so concerned about, so why bother?

does your physicist know how particle A interacts with particle B in the real world without the interaction of colliders?  look into your image in the water, it is still and undistorted. then throw a stone and see how your image get distorted. it is not your real image anymore.

aren't you distorting reality each and every time you look into a mirror to comb your hair?

yes but that is my necessity. but i get a distorted view of my own image indeed. it is not real me.

look into your image in the water [etc.]

I just don't see how it's relevant to what I wrote. If you want to look at the image, you just look at the image. If you want to know how stones interact with water (and, optionally, how this distorts images), you throw stones into the water. Which is, basically, what physicists want to know, and what colliders do. What's wrong with that?

yes but that is my necessity. but i get a distorted view of my own image indeed. it is not real me.

Necessity indeed, but I'm afraid you didn't get the whole point: your combed hair is real (i.e., not an image) yet it wouldn't be so neatly combed without the necessary distortion. If you were true to yourself, you'd better go dishevelled.

And then they perform a detached autopsy?

people like you always cut jokes of those things which they never understand or try to understand. that won't change the reality.

detached observation will always give you truth and not falsehood.

interaction gives you falsehood and not the truth.

People like me think your position is baseless.

RSS

© 2023   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service