07 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course, I know all this. What I don't know is why you think it supports the conclusion that observation is never direct. Right now I'm at a cafe and there is a tree in front of me. I want to say that I have a direct observation of the tree. That is, I am not observing the tree by virtue of observing some other object. I am not, for instance, indirectly observing the tree by virtue of directly observing its reflection in a cafe window. I am not even more indirectly observing the tree by virtue of indirectly observing its reconstructed image in the cafe's security feed. Even given the scientific story, there is still conceptual room for the direct/indirect distinction.
in fact, even direct observation is not direct. Light travels at a speed of about 6 microseconds per mile and a ship on the horizon would be about 6 or so miles or about 36 microseconds from the observation in time. That means if something happens on that ship after the light has reached you, you would not see the results for another 36 microseconds. So sup ...[text shortened]... etriment of the human race and most life forms on Earth. So do you really even observe ANYTHING?
Yes, I am only able to observe the tree because light is reflecting off the tree, impinging on my sensory systems, causing patterns of neural activation that are either identical to or eventuate in a perceptual experience of the tree. This is how visual perception occurs in creatures like us. But none of that entails, or even suggests, that I do not directly observe the tree.
Rather, instances of observation are instantiated in creatures like us via a causal story of the sort above. Scientific inquiry explains how observations occur, not that there are no observations, direct or otherwise. When we discovered that water was H2O, we didn't thereby discover that there is no such thing as water.
07 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrI think you're running together two different things: 1) S observing P and, 2) S being justified in believing that he is observing P.
I think you're running together two different things: 1) S observing P and, 2) S being justified in believing that he is observing P.
There is no plausible construal of 'faith' such that it's required for (1). If P is the case and S is (appropriately) causally connected to the fact that P, then S observes P. The heavy lifting here is spelling out what ...[text shortened]... and address. Knowing that P, like justifiably believing P, doesn't require epistemic certainty.
No doubt.
There is no plausible construal of 'faith' such that it's required for (1). If P is the case and S is (appropriately) causally connected to the fact that P, then S observes P. The heavy lifting here is spelling out what constitutes an appropriate causal connection between S and the fact that P.
Can S observe P and be wrong?
I see the players riding spinners, observe the direction of said spinners and they appear to spin in a direction opposite to the momentum of their vehicles.
But note that these are only requirements if Internalism about epistemic justification is correct. If Externalism is correct, then S doesn't need these further, supporting reasons.
I don't see how the internalism/externalism has bearing on the topic.
Rather, S simply needs to be a reliable observer in fact.
"Observer in fact" being the operative portion here, to be sure.
It's logically possible you're wrong about your name, address, etc., so since there's a chance you're wrong, your beliefs about your name and address can't be justified. But that's absurd. You know your name and address. Knowing that P, like justifiably believing P, doesn't require epistemic certainty.
I agree on some, but hold out on this one point: my "knowledge" is entirely dependent upon my frame of reference.
07 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detection? Rather, we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.
Would you say that the Higgs Boson was observed at Cern?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarr"...we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature."
Of course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detecti ...[text shortened]... idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.
That's one way of saying it. Another way is that positing it helps solve some problems in the agreement between our mathematical models and our observations.
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by JS357Sure. But there are any number of posits that could reconcile our mathematical models with our observations. Why posit the Higgs Boson? Presumably, because this posit coheres with other theory, has explanatory depth, has testable implications we've been unable to disconfirm, etc. We posit the Higgs Boson rather than positing things like gravity-fairies because positing the Higgs Boson is justified by our observations and experiments. But to say that positing the Higgs Boson is justified is very similar to saying that inferring the existence of the Higgs Boson is justified. I like your epistemic caution, though. It makes for good science.
"...we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature."
That's one way of saying it. Another way is that positing it helps solve some problems in the agreement between our mathematical models and our observations.
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrThere is one voice of dissent on the Higgs:
Sure. But there are any number of posits that could reconcile our mathematical models with our observations. Why posit the Higgs Boson? Presumably, because this posit coheres with other theory, has explanatory depth, has testable implications we've been unable to disconfirm, etc. We posit the Higgs Boson rather than positing things like gravity-fairi ...[text shortened]... the Higgs Boson is justified. I like your epistemic caution, though. It makes for good science.
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrhttp://home.web.cern.ch/topics/higgs-boson
Of course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detecti ...[text shortened]... idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.
On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV.
In common usage, people do speak very loosely.
