Talk:Observation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

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.

[edit] Observer

Someone apparently went and dablinked all physics-related references to observer into observation. I would much appreciate it if the parties responsible would treat the notion of an observer here, particularly as it applies to reference frames. It's kinda hard to talk about physics without an article treating observers properly. Silly rabbit 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble's Observations

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving apart. I don't know all of his observations, but he for example observed that the light that is theoretically from that galaxy was a certain color. The idea that galaxies were moving apart was an hypothesis or theory. AThousandYoung 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observation Techniques

I'm interested in techniques for observing. For example, how do soldiers and police observe the environment in order to detect threats? AThousandYoung 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 9th '08 changes by Mikkalai

Although I agree with most of the changes you made - high five on cutting out that Big Bang crap - in the first sentence you removed the clause "or within some scientific usages..." which I added when I created the section The "observer" concept within special relativity.

I realize that the previous wording of that sentence was extremely clumsy, I simply bolted on the S.R. clause because I couldn't think of an elegant way of putting it, but the thing is that your change removed all mention of the special relativity meaning of the term from the intro. This S.R. usage of the term is radically different in some respects from even other scientific meanings of it so I feel it's important that it be noted prominently right in the intro.

So I'm hoping that we can come to some compromise on this. How about adding another sentence immediately after what you have:

Observation is either an activity of a sapient or sentient living being (e.g. humans), which senses and assimilates the knowledge of a phenomenon or an instrumental recording of data. The term may also refer to the data collected during this activity. Also N.B. that within the scientific field of special relativity "observer" and "observation" have a meaning that connotes data or phenomena recorded or evaluated from a specific viewpoint as opposed to an omniscient or objective viewpoint.

I'm not particular about the wording at all, feel free to propose your own. The tricky thing is the either-or formation of the first sentence... in S.R. an "observation" might be made by either a human or by an instrument, but the thing is that it's implying a subjective observation limited to a particular inertial reference frame. ...Maybe even a bulleted list, the way a disambiguation page looks? That would be unusual for an introduction but it seems almost appropriate here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)