gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 18
th, 2011 at 3:09pm:
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...
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.
Forum
Pages: 
