Talk:Observation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This could do with some mention of observation in science and in other disciplines... Martin
- I just merged an article discussing observation in philosophy. I didn't touch the content, and it could use some more work. Akerkhof
The form of observation in this article is naturalistic, which is a valid stage in the development of knowledge. Great biologists are typically naturalists as youths. Stephen Jay Gould. Konrad Lorenz. Charles Darwin, even.
A phenomenological view is still acceptable when developing a science. Where to draw the line. The most advanced physics can be found in the history of the universe, which we are getting from observatories.
Even the odd stellar objects which are being cataloged, basically as curiosities, at this stage, can be viewed as examples of stellar evolution. Hence even astronomy benefits from a naturalistic viewpoint.
Or is the issue 'undisciplined observation'.
Contents |
[edit] law of observation?
I've been looking for the law/axiom/statement of scientific observation that says (in some form or another) that the Observer has an affect on the things he observes. I cannot find such a statement. Does this statement exist, or did I just dream it?
- Maybe you're looking for quantum measurement? Karol 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] article neglects the uncertainty principle
This article needs to at least provide some form of reference to the fact that the uncertainty principle changes the nature of observation entirely and requires its redefinition. -- Natalinasmpf 07:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I need something!!!
I don't know the name of an observation involving a type of measurement or one that mainly involves the five senses.
[edit] Unhappy chappie
The definition strikes me as overly anthropomorphic. What do we know about the lion's "framework of previous knowledge and ideas" as it observes an antelope? I would prefer something like "Observation is the sensory assimilation of information by a living organism."
I'm uncomfortable with the statement "However, personal observations gathered without the aid of instruments are often unreliable and not always reproducible."
Many observations of the living world are made without the use of intstruments. If you notice a bee of some particular species taking nectar from a flower of another species, is that observation unreliable or irreproducible just because you didn't use an instrument?
The paragraph continues: "Therefore they are not of much use in exact sciences like physics." I think that this is incorrect and irrelevant to the topic of observation; and in any case, how did we get onto the subject of science, far less the so-called "exact" science of physics? What about observation in the arts?
I also disagree with the remark "Observation invariably requires logical thinking," since to collect observations does not necessarily require logical thinking. Analysing the observations does - but we do not always observe in order to analyse.
