Abstract
Vision, Visibility, and Empirical Research. In general, natural scientists use the concept of observation in a liberal way: they talk of observing electrons, DNA, or distant quasars. Several philosophers of science have recently argued for a similar use of the concept of observation: they have claimed that the important aspects of scientific research can only be properly reconstructed in accordance with how this term is actually used in science. With reference to an example from astronomy, I point out that the proposed generalisation of the concept of observation leads to undesirable consequences. I argue that a differentiated conceptual framework is required in order to give an adequate account of the varieties of scientific experience. Thus, the appropriate starting point for distinguishing these various scientific research practices should not be the generalised scientific conception of observation, but instead distinctly different uses of the term observation drawn from ordinary language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
LITERATUR
Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.): 1985, Images of Science, Chicago and London.
Churchland, P. M.: 1985, ‘The Ontological Status of Observables,’ in: Churchland P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Images of Science, Chicago and London.
Courbin, F., Margain P. and Lidman, C.: 1997, Hints About Dark, Light-Bending Matter in the Distant Universe (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1997/pr-09-97.html), ESO Press Release 09/97.
Dretske, F. I.: 1981, Knowledge and the Flow of Information, Oxford.
Duhem, P.: 1908, Ziel und Struktur der physikalischen Theorien, 1978 mit einer Einleitung neu herausgegeben von L. Schäfer, Hamburg. Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I.: 1989, ‘Extragalactic Reality. The Case of Gravitational Lensing,’ Philosophy of Science 56, 555–581.
Janich, P.: 1992, ‘Beobachtung und Handlung,’ in: Poser H. (ed.), Erfahrung und Beobachtung, Berlin, 13–34.
Kosso, P.: 1989, Observability and Observation in Physical Science, Dordrecht.
Kuhn, T. S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2. Auflage.
Leplin, J. (ed.): 1984, Scientific Realism, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Lynch, M. and Edgerton, S. Y.: 1988, ‘Aesthetics and Digital Image Processing: Representational Craft in Contemporary Astronomy,’ in: Fyfe, G. and Law, J. (eds.), Picturing Power. Visual Depictions and Social Relations, London and New York, 184–220.
Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (eds.): 1990, Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge/ Mass. and London.
Reimers, D. and Wisotzki, L.: 1997, ‘The Hamburg/ESO Survey,’ The Messenger 88, 14– 19.
Schneider, P., Ehlers, J. and Falco, E. E.: 1992, Gravitational Lenses, Heidelberg: Springer.
Shapere, D.: 1982, ‘The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,’ Philosophy of Science 49, 485–525.
Shapere, D.: 1985, ‘Observation and the Scientific Enterprise,’ in: Achinstein, P. and Hannaway, O. (eds.), Observation, Experiment and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, Cambridge/Mass., 21–44.
Shapere, D.: 1993, ‘Astronomy and Antirealism,’ Philosophy of Science 60, 134–150.
Wisotzki, L., Köhler, T., Kayser, R. and Reimers, D.: 1993, ‘The new double QSO HE 1104–1805: Gravitational lens or binary quasar?’, Astronomy and Astrophysics 278, L15–L18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schickore, J. Sehen, Sichtbarkeit und empirische Forschung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30, 273–287 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008374032737
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008374032737