Why Observation Matters. A Characterization of the Sciences as Contrasted with Fiction and Religion on Semantical Grounds

Kodikas/Code An International Journal of Semiotics 40 (December 2017, No. 3-4):332-358 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Observation is described as that which is informationally linked to the observed with the help of its being characterized both internally and externally. The external characterization refers to what perception really is (exemplified by seeing) in the manner semantic externalism treats natural kinds. Observable predicates are treated as reducible to appearance behaviour thus characterized. Referring to this way of semantical reduction distinguishes cultures of knowledge from cultures which acknowledge linguistic utterances as truthmakers. Introductory Remarks Theories of the sciences have mainly dealt with how observation confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis. The question why observation matters at all has hardly been dealt with. Instead of giving empirical evidence one could consider looking for evidence in books. Indeed, we use books in order to gain knowledge but in the sciences this is commonly justified for the reason that scientific books refer to formerly published empirical data utilized in current theories—because of their reference to observation. Imagine a text contains only true statements. Why not consider referring to it in order to decide upon the truth of a hypothesis? It does not matter whether I know for certain that its statements are true. Our concern is what I am justified to infer from the text, presupposing that its statements are true. A striking peculiarity is that in the sciences I am not justified to infer anything from it, even if the text leads me to true conclusions only. Obviously, the evidence I am finally allowed to rely on in the sciences is not a linguistic utterance be it a spoken or a written one. It seems that linguistic utterances do not count as reasonable truthmakers in the sciences as some utterances do in religion. (Quotes from the Bible or the Koran are examples.) It has traditionally been presupposed rather than justified that observation is basic in the sciences. To stress the role of observation seems trivial. How is observation related to scientific statements?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

David Hume's reductionist epistemology of testimony.Paul Faulkner - 1998 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (4):302–313.
Need There Be a Problem of Induction?Harold I. Brown - 1978 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):521 - 532.
Observation and Error.Henry E. Kyburg Jr - 1990 - In Henry Ely Kyburg (ed.), Science & reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Through the Explanatory Process in Natural History and Ecology.Simone Mariani - 2008 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 30 (2):159 - 178.
The scientists' criterion of true observation.D. G. Ellson - 1963 - Philosophy of Science 30 (1):41-52.
Observation and Induction.Theodore J. Everett - 2010 - Logos and Episteme 1 (2):303-324.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-12-17

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references