Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 11:11pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 13th, 2011 at 11:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13th, 2011 at 11:01pm: evolution is an observation of biological processes usually over long periods of time. It is not a man made construct !! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_%28philosophy_of_science%29 In particular .. read this section: Concepts that are considered constructs .. include .. scientific hypotheses and theories (e.g., evolutionary theory, gravitational theory), as well as classifications (e.g. in biological taxonomy) are also conceptual entities considered to be constructs. So how does the theory of God factor into that definition  ?? The evolutionary process is not man made. The description and naming of it is man made but the process is observable by anything or anyone.

Actually the process, to the extent it goes beyond natural selection, is not observable. Even natural selection is not directly observable. It is an interpretation, not an observation. Being able to distinguish observation and interpretation is key to understanding the philosophy of science.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

Actually the process, to the extent it goes beyond natural selection, is not observable. Even natural selection is not directly observable. It is an interpretation, not an observation. Being able to distinguish observation and interpretation is key to understanding the philosophy of science.

Not observable in Galapagos tortoise, but it IS observable in, for example, fruit fly.

OK, explain what you actually observe in fruit fly.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 9:01am:

OK, explain what you actually observe in fruit fly.

Sounds too much like a book Free :-)


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

You observe traits. You interpret a reason for those traits. You do not observe the reason, yet without the reason there would be no theory of natural selection. People often confuse their interpretation with their actual observations.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

You observe traits. You interpret a reason for those traits. You do not observe the reason, yet without the reason there would be no theory of natural selection. People often confuse their interpretation with their actual observations.

You observe the unopenable watch and arrive at a hypothesis as to how it works. Then you test your hypothesis by experiment and draw your conclusions; which are either that your hypothesis has been proved useful to believe, or not. Then you publish your findings which are tested by peers.

You can't see gravity either, but it's still a good scientific theory.

So what is observable in a fruit fly?

Grey wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 1:40pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 9:33am: You observe traits. You interpret a reason for those traits. You do not observe the reason, yet without the reason there would be no theory of natural selection. People often confuse their interpretation with their actual observations. You observe the unopenable watch and arrive at a hypothesis as to how it works. Then you test your hypothesis by experiment and draw your conclusions; which are either that your hypothesis has been proved useful to believe, or not. Then you publish your findings which are tested by peers. You can't see gravity either, but it's still a good scientific theory.

Perhaps this is true, in the very strictest sense, of 'seeing'.

But you can see the effect that gravity has upon objects.

Just drop an egg, from head height, onto your kitchen floor, and you'll understand perfectly, that there is a ['unseen'] force acting upon the egg.     ;D

observation vs interpretation


Both of these things are 'going on' in our heads, aren't they ???

Even the observation part, the 'perception', is also going on, inside of our heads.

So, what is real ???        :D

Strawberry Fields


Quote:

....Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out. It doesn't matter much to me. Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields. Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about. Strawberry Fields forever.

To observe is also to interpret. Understanding what one is observing takes the forms of thoughts denoted by a semiotic. Observation then takes the form of already denoted "objects" imbued with meaning. So I think there's a doubling occurring here with the observation versus interpretation discussion. In regards to natural selection, a second interpretation is occuring to justify the initial interpreted observation.

The observation "the cat is on the mat" denotes an interpretation of objects: "cat" "on" "mat". A second interpretation would ask, why is the cat on the mat? or, how did the cat come to be on the mat? Natural selection would ask, how did the cat on the mat come to be? Why is the cat on the mat fur orange?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

To observe is also to interpret. Understanding what one is observing takes the forms of thoughts denoted by a semiotic. Observation then takes the form of already denoted "objects" imbued with meaning. So I think there's a doubling occurring here with the observation versus interpretation discussion. In regards to natural selection, a second interpretation is occuring to justify the initial interpreted observation.

We experience this 'life'.

And we try to 'imbue' whatever we experience, and whatever we perceive, with meaning.

Q.
But why so ???

A.
Is it because it gives us comfort to believe that we can see some form of order in our existence ???

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

To observe is also to interpret. Understanding what one is observing takes the forms of thoughts denoted by a semiotic. Observation then takes the form of already denoted "objects" imbued with meaning. So I think there's a doubling occurring here with the observation versus interpretation discussion. In regards to natural selection, a second interpretation is occuring to justify the initial interpreted observation.

No, there IS a difference between observing and interpreting...

You 'observe' that one erterior wall of a house is painted white......and all you should report is that the house has one white wall

If you report that the house is white, you have made an assumption, based on your own interpretation....i.e houses usually have all exterior walls the same colour...
There is a difference between report only what you observe, and reporting waht you interpret from those observations...

Grey wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 1:40pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 9:33am: You observe traits. You interpret a reason for those traits. You do not observe the reason, yet without the reason there would be no theory of natural selection. People often confuse their interpretation with their actual observations. You observe the unopenable watch and arrive at a hypothesis as to how it works. Then you test your hypothesis by experiment and draw your conclusions; which are either that your hypothesis has been proved useful to believe, or not. Then you publish your findings which are tested by peers. You can't see gravity either, but it's still a good scientific theory.

... let's not forget there is more than one theory on gravity though!

You have to dot all your is and cross all your ts when discussing science ya know!!!!  8-)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 15th, 2011 at 3:48pm: To observe is also to interpret. Understanding what one is observing takes the forms of thoughts denoted by a semiotic. Observation then takes the form of already denoted "objects" imbued with meaning. So I think there's a doubling occurring here with the observation versus interpretation discussion. In regards to natural selection, a second interpretation is occuring to justify the initial interpreted observation. No, there IS a difference between observing and interpreting... You 'observe' that one erterior wall of a house is painted white......and all you should report is that the house has one white wall If you report that the house is white, you have made an assumption, based on your own interpretation....i.e houses usually have all exterior walls the same colour... There is a difference between report only what you observe, and reporting waht you interpret from those observations...

I think you're just using the terms "report" and "assumption" interchangeably with "observe" and "interpret".
I mean, we come to the same conclusion if we "report", "observe", or "interpret" that "the house has a white wall".  It's simply a description of "things" - "wall", "house", "white paint". Someone, somewhere, sometime has given these things the title we used to describe them, and we merely interpret these things based on introjected memory.

Perhaps it was just a bad example. Usually if someone uses the term observe incorrectly, there is an underlying assumption or theory involved that is between what they actually observed and what they claim to have observed. In this case it is merely that the four walls are the same colour (because that is what houses are like). The distinction takes on far greater significance for the theory of natural selection.