1 / 24

The Observable / Unobservable Distinction

The Observable / Unobservable Distinction. Anti-realism depends crucially on this distinction – the epistemological thesis. A somewhat confusing distinction: “Observable / theoretical” distinction Can we divide our language into a theoretical and non-theoretical part?

MikeCarlo
Download Presentation

The Observable / Unobservable Distinction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Observable / Unobservable Distinction • Anti-realism depends crucially on this distinction – the epistemological thesis. • A somewhat confusing distinction: • “Observable / theoretical” distinction • Can we divide our language into a theoretical and non-theoretical part? • Can we classify objects and events into observable and unobservable ones?

  2. Some relevant questions: • Is the line drawing the observable/unobservable distinction arbitrary? • Is this distinction epistemologically significant? • Does this distinction really exist? • Is everything “observable in principle”?

  3. E.g. can electrons be “observed” using apparatus like cloud chamber:

  4. It seems that cloud chambers only allow us to “detect” electrons, but not “observe” them. • E.g. a jet aircraft can only be “detected” by the trail left behind.

  5. But how to distinguish between observation and detection? Would it be arbitrary? • Consider these sequence of events: looking at something • with the naked eye, • through a window, • through a pair of strong glasses, • through binoculars, • through an ordinary microscope, • through an electron microscope, and so on.

  6. Observing Not observing • Some argue that these events lie on a “smooth continuum”: • How to decide which count as observing and which not?

  7. E.g. can a biologist ‘observe’ microorganisms with a high-powered microscope, or can she only ‘detect’ their presence? • Detection relies heavily on theory. • Interpreting this image also relies on theory. • Theory-ladenness of detection / observation

  8. Bald? Not bald Bald ? ? ? • So how much theory-ladenness is needed to draw the line? Arbitrary? • Yet some retort that this argument only shows that “observable” is a vague concept.

  9. ? Unobservable Observable • The same applies to “observable”: • Vagueness seems only to set an upper limit on the precision with which antirealists can formulate their position. • What do you think?

  10. E.g. Boyle’s Law Directly tested by observing the readings on the apparatus. Molecules postulated are unobservable. The Underdetermination Argument • Why is knowledge of unobservables impossible? • Consider again the kinetic theory of gases: • Observational data constitute the ultimate evidence for claims about unobservable entities.

  11. T T’ Any relevant observational data • Anti-realists argue that: • Observational data “underdetermine” scientific theories: • If this thesis is true, agnosticism about the unobservable world is vindicated.

  12. Underdetermination & the Duhem-Quine thesis: • Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) • French philosopher, historian • W. V. O. Quine (1908-2000) • American philosopher, logician • Recall some previous points: Negative evidence does not prove conclusively that a theory is incorrect. (Theory T • Auxiliary Hypothesis H)  Implication I  I ___.  (T • H)

  13. Example 1: Round Earth vs. Flat Earth Theory

  14. Example 2: The discovery of Neptune • Newton’s theory of gravitation wrongly predicted the orbit of Uranus. • Some scientists tried to rescue Newton’s theory by postulating the existence of an unknown planet. • Neptune was finally discovered at almost the exact place and time as predicted.

  15. T + H T’ + H’ any relevant observational data • The Duhem-Quine thesis: • Any theoretical claim T can consistently be retained in the face of contrary evidence by making adjustments elsewhere in our web of beliefs. (T • H)  I (T • H’) I • Underdetermination: Both T and T’ can always be retained!

  16. Besides observational data, recall the criteria of adequacy (pragmatic virtues) for choosing theories: • Simplicity, conservatism, fruitfulness, scope. • But are such criteria relevant to the truth of theories, or at least to their probable truth? • What do you think? • Reference: • “Simplicity” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy • http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

  17. Before 1987 1987 Implication for Observable but Unobserved Things • Suppose satellite pictures show:

  18. Volcanic eruption The camera that took the pictures was faulty Caused by UFO The large crater appearing in 1987 The large crater appearing in 1987 A meteorite struck the moon in 1987 • A common hypothesis: • Many alternative hypotheses are possible, however:

  19. The Duhem-Quine thesis guarantees that all these hypotheses can be sustained come what may. • Hence underdetermination again! • Only knowledge of actually observed things is possible?! • But what about knowledge of • dinosaurs, • continental drift, • formation of the Earth, • and many other things in science?

  20. Seems to be a reductio ad absurdum. • Knowledge of the unobservable world seems possible after all. • But a version of the problem of induction still persists: • The problem of induction: • How to justify inductive inferences - on which scientific knowledge heavily depend? • Uniformity of Nature Assumption (UNA) • No consensus. • Scientific knowledge is ultimately founded on faith towards UNA?

  21. T T’ Observational data Theory about unobservable or unobserved entities induction observational data • Underdetermination: • Hence inductive inference from data to theory:

  22. Final remarks: • The underdetermination argument does raise a real difficult problem. • But it seems that there is no specialdifficulty about unobservable entities. • Problem of inductive knowledge for all sorts of objects.

More Related