David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The concern with the objectivity of observations is as old as empirical study itself. Protagoras’ assertion that ‘Man is the measure of all things’, though not particularly directed at observations, raised general doubts concerning the objectivity of our beliefs. In the twentieth century, the concern has been brought under the banner ‘theory-ladenness of observation’. In simple terms, since observations are conducted and formulated in theory-specific contexts, they are inadvertently imbued with the prejudices of those contexts - the terms ‘theory’ and ‘observation’ are here broadly construed. Accordingly, it is argued, observations cannot be neutral in the testing of theories.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Tamar Szabó Gendler (2006). Introduction: Perceptual Experience. In John Hawthorne & Tamar Szabó Gendler (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press. 1--30.
Theodore J. Everett (2010). Observation and Induction. Logos and Episteme 1 (2):303-324.
Robert Nola (1990). Some Observations on a Popperian Experiment Concerning Observation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21 (2):329-346.
Matthias Adam, Theoriebeladenheit Und Objektivität. Zur Rolle Von Beobachtungen in den Naturwissenschaften.
John D. Greenwood (1990). Two Dogmas of Neo-Empiricism: The "Theory-Informity" of Observation and the Quine-Duhem Thesis. Philosophy of Science 57 (4):553-574.
Matthias Adam (2004). Why Worry About Theory-Dependence? Circularity, Minimal Empiricality and Reliability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2 & 3):117 – 132.
Added to index2010-04-12
Total downloads19 ( #73,427 of 1,004,692 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,004,692 )
How can I increase my downloads?