On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden

[Aetixintro]

From my website, again, http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html:
"It's against the nature of objectivity of science that there's any significant room for the theory-laden observations. If there's a question of theory-laden observations, it's first and foremost in the disclosure of new phenomena in the first experiences where one may get tricked. Surely, if the issue is under serious scrutiny and by several people, my bet is that theory-laden observations hardly play any role at all! Yet, I can very well right away recommend more and better studies into theory-laden observations, but I find that the natural sciences are in greater extent shielded from this than the "new" sciences, like psychology. I think this may be due to various reasons. For the kicks of it, what if one lets the natural scientists examine theory-laden observations in their field, psychologists examine theirs and compare the conclusions? It strikes me that the question of theory-laden observations always come up in relations to psychology, like there's some dubious powerplay going on because of the great variation of practices!"

What about you?

[nameless]

... the ... objectivity of science ...

Realizing that this is not the topic, but in defference to accuracy, I felt the need to interject that there is no such thing as the "objectivity of science".
QM has thoroughly refuted such a notion.

[Aetixintro]

nameless
I can't see how QM can refute anything without itself holding objectivity in its body of system even if it's wholly relative. I think you also need to back up this refutation and tell me exactly what it is that has been refuted. I mean, some parts of physics still stand, right? QM, itself, must stand.

The accomplishments of the natural sciences are so massive, I refuse to acknowledge this swiftness of assertion! Technology as basic level of science and our concepts and descriptions are to great degree very effective.

Conclusion: the objectivity of science remains until we are futile in using it and I can't even imagine that on the horizon of future. I'm quite new to QM and I haven't studied physics at university level, still I'd like the concrete progress empirically expressed and I've yet to see such in an extensive manner. Pointing to the Schrodinger's cat, I sense that there are difficulties within QM that you are not so eager to tell about. I'll be gathering more information and I'll see what the future brings.

[nameless]

nameless
I can't see how QM can refute anything without itself holding objectivity in its body of system even if it's wholly relative.

Here's some good explanations of QM that might help you to begin to understand the end of the theory/belief in 'objectivity.
...a very good explanation that is not too complicated is by; Robert Anton Wilson on youtube.

A bit more difficult, but worth the effort, I found, is here;
What is Quantum Mechanics

I think you also need to back up this refutation and tell me exactly what it is that has been refuted.

The notion of the possibility of 'objectivity' has been refuted.

I mean, some parts of physics still stand, right?
QM, itself, must stand.

QM has discovered Consciousness, it makes no claims to 'objectivity'. It is not possible to ever repeat an experiment under exactly the same conditions as the 'first' time (so much for 'empiricism'). The experimenter (-s Perspective) is an integral feature of the experiment (so much for 'objectivity').

The accomplishments of the natural sciences are so massive, I refuse to acknowledge this swiftness of assertion!

I wonder what those 'accomplishments' would have been like if we had it 'correct' from the beginning, without all the tedious elimination of all the erroneous thinking and beliefs and notions. I'm not intimation that we have it all, or are at the finale, but what we now have dwarfs the notions and medieval beliefs of the 'past', of 'classical physics'.

Technology as basic level of science and our concepts and descriptions are to great degree very effective.

Thats a matter of Perspective. Compare the present massive technological advancements across the board to that of yesteryear. They thought it 'massive' then... and it was!

Pointing to the Schrodinger's cat, I sense that there are difficulties within QM that you are not so eager to tell about. I'll be gathering more information and I'll see what the future brings.

Not at all. I shy from no understanding or truth. I have no beliefs to defend.

[Aetixintro]

nameless
I leave it at that. You have your subjectivity 'proven' by QM and we'll see what it amounts to in the future. Though, when I read about QM, it's not like anything. It is defined as a body of theory concerning quants or quarks. I can't say that the Double Slit experiment isn't objective.

This is by no means decided yet and QM will have to wait in my own life until I have more time to it. I welcome other people who have views on QM and the dichotomy of subjectivity and objectivity.

nameless, as you've said, this thread isn't about objectivity and subjectivity divide. I'll keep the theory-laden observations to more mundane stuff, at least not the controversial.

Cheers!

[nameless]

nameless
I leave it at that. You have your subjectivity 'proven' by QM...

No, not 'proven', but well supported, as it is from other diverse places.
But, that's for another day...
peace

[John W. Kelly]

QM has discovered Consciousness...

Such as in Wigner's friend.

[nameless]

^^^ Sure, his gedanken experiment (also) points in that direction...

[Aetixintro]

More on the point from my website, continuing:
"It's funny how one claims observations theory-laden while at the same time hailing radiologists for increasing aptness for viewing x-rays down to insane minuteness. In some regard, this should be contradictory."

Do you have examples where people get more acute rather than dull when they are observing?

[nameless]

Do you have examples where people get more acute rather than dull when they are observing?

Sometimes neither.
Sometimes there are no observed thoughts.
Sometimes an observation is simply an observation with no thought involved. 'Theories' are 'thoughts'; no 'thought' = no 'theories'

Are you relating a particular observation/perception as 'causal' to a particular (mutually manifesting) observed/perceived thought??

[Aetixintro]

nameless
It's my belief that children have limited possibilities for own theories and thus they make the observations. If they see a green ball, there's a "thought"/imprint/signal in the brain that corresponds to/is this green ball. If they see it again the same thing happen over again in their brain. Perhaps they also have associated thought like "I like that green ball", but this is something that comes in addition to the signal in the brain from the mere observation.

I recognise the little deviation of "I like blue better than red", but I think we agree that your driver's license requires you to hold a kind of "objective" view. It's the same thing in science. You need to be up to the level in order to count in. Otherwise, I expect quick ejection!

Besides, the Wigner's friend isn't more than speculation. Roger Penrose thinks so, at least. If you think otherwise, you can give me the empirical consequences, not more thoughts.

Cheers!

[nameless]

nameless
It's my belief that children have limited possibilities for own theories and thus they make the observations.

I am equating your 'observations' with my 'perceptions'.
That is who we are, what we do, perceive. We are Conscious Perspectives. From the moment that we 'earliest' perceive life, we 'observe'. It is commonly thought that the growth of thought/ego is the loss of 'innocence'. During meditative moments, we are free of thought/ego. We simply, as always, perceive.
As babies rapidly learn thought, it seems inevitable that they will, at some time, perceive theory thoughts regarding that which is perceived. They come and go, to varying degrees.
So, all 'observations/perceptions' do not, necessarily, come with perceived corresponding 'theories'.

If they see a green ball, there's a "thought"/imprint/signal in the brain that corresponds to/is this green ball.

Perhaps, at a certain age. Not in a newborn; he's all 'download' with no memories/thoughts to correlate, juxtapose and examine. It is thought/ego that perceives 'subject/object' distinctions. He is yet free of egoPerspective

If they see it again the same thing happen over again in their brain. Perhaps they also have associated thought like "I like that green ball",

Perhaps...

but this is something that comes in addition to the signal in the brain from the mere observation.

We observe/perceive the ball, and we perceive the (when there are any) thoughts.

I recognise the little deviation of "I like blue better than red",

Bingo! Ego!

but I think we agree that your driver's license require you to hold a kind of "objective" view.

I don't agree at all, nor know what you mean.

It's the same thing in science. You need to be up to the level in order to count in. Otherwise, I expect quick ejection!

Nor know what you mean here...

Besides, the Wigner's friend isn't more than speculation.

It is an experiment, with resultant data. It's called a gedanken experiment, a 'thought' experiment.

Roger Penrose thinks so, at least.

Everyone has their opinions, eh?

If you think otherwise, you can give me the empirical consequences, not more thoughts.

Woah there, son!
First, WTF is an "empirical consequence"?
Segundo, empiricism is an obsolete in any but local pragmatic instances. It falls far short of the reality that science understands today!
Terce, what you perceive here is words, not 'thoughts' or "empirical consequences". Philosophy is critical thought. We are doing philosophy here, at least I am. (Disclaimer; I'm speaking in general, here, and am casting no aspersions.)
Quart, it's not "you can give me", its "would you please".
I had/have no intention of attacking any of your sacred cows, but they do make the best hamburger!
And, furthermore, your 'Roger' is allowed to have his thoughts, as quoted, but I am held to different standards, and now disallowed 'mine'?? Another inadvertantly besmirched sacred cow?

Sorry about your sacred cows, but you exposed them to the potentially deadly examination of philosophical enquiry.
"Philosophers are mindsharks!"

I'm sorry, but all observation is not theory-laden (whatever you consider "laden" to mean).

[Aetixintro]

I'm sorry, but all observation is not theory-laden (whatever you consider "laden" to mean).

Since you seem to reiterate my point in this, that observations are not theory-laden to any decisive degree in the natural sciences. This means that the scientific community is effective in deciding what the experiment data is and what the theory is. The object is in a sense Kuhn and his paradigms because he seems to mix the cumulative nature of data with a given theory, at that time. This is something I find to be wrong. I'm sorry I'm short, but the conclusion you've written, is the one I agree with as well.

PS: I believe Lee Smolin asks for empirical evidence in relation to string-theory. Do you know the name?

PS2: In traffic, it's best to keep an eye on others as well as the environment, eg. trees, obstacles, posts, fences, the whole lot.

PS3: In science, if you fail to have cognition of what the 9 others get from the experiment, I think you're in trouble. If somebody does add fantasies to the observations, perhaps somebody should find something else to do.

PS4: "Sacred cows"! Huh! I have no sacred cows, but I try to be constructive in relation to reality and meaningful human activity.

Are we done? Cheers!

[nameless]

I'm sorry, but all observation is not theory-laden (whatever you consider "laden" to mean).

Since you seem to reiterate my point in this, that observations are not theory-laden to any decisive degree in the natural sciences.

Or anywhere else...

This means that the scientific community is effective in deciding what the experiment data is and what the theory is.

I don't know what you mean by "effective' here, but here is no one-size-fits-all 'scientific community view' of anything. There are many scientists and, thus, many Perspectives and theories and opinions about the 'same' pile of 'evidence'.

PS: I believe Lee Smolin asks for empirical evidence in relation to string-theory.

We aren't discussing "string theory".

PS2: In traffic, it's best to keep an eye on others as well as the environment, eg. trees, obstacles, posts, fences, the whole lot.

Especially if you are driving! *__-

PS3: In science, if you fail to have cognition of what the 9 others get from the experiment, I think you're in trouble.

Only if those nine must approve your grant or tenure or thesis, etc...
You are, also, offering the 'fallacy of authority'.

If somebody does add fantasies to the observations, perhaps somebody should find something else to do.

Thats another whole topic, what is a "fantasy"? Seeing something that others don't? Like Einstein or DaVinci or Crick (trippin' on LSD when he discovered the DNA sequence)?
I'm glad that they didn't "find something else to do".

Are we done?

I am if you am.
peace