"Katharine Hepburn. A grand lady"
Feedback/Notes
Top Content
Latest Activity
- Groups News
- Everything
"Interesting Loren. Thank you"
What Happens Next Time?
Surprises generally only work ONCE, especially if they are UNPLEASANT surprises or worse, hostile,…See More
"How could any Lord have made this world?... there is no reason, order, justice: but suffering,…"
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part I"
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part II"
"WOTM: It's A Relationship (ft. Mr. Deity)"
"The lord works in delirious ways. -- Aron Ra And all it takes is a cursory look at the Old…"
"I am an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we…"
"Isn't it interesting that religious thinking and psychosis are so closely related you…"
"Jean Messlier's final prayer or war cry is unmatched. There are few like him. I think the…"
"Jean Meslier offers a comprehensive read!"
"l like your dream! Alan always has a vivid imagination! As does Emma Goldman.
"The…"
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?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michel on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Arnab Banerjee on
-
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.
-
-
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?
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on
-
...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.
-
-
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.
© 2023 Created by Atheist Universe.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
