What is observation, exactly?

[Fred56]

What do we do when we 'observe'?

What process or technique (method) do we 'apply' to this? Is it just something that 'happens', so we don't even need to think about it?

What do you think observing is? What's an observation?

[iNow]

What do we do when we 'observe'?

Hi Fred - Look here, and let's try to prevent this thread from being closed (like your other "What is ___" threads) due to trollesque behavior. Now that this has been addressed, you should ask a specific question for discussion or let the thread die on its own.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+observation

 

 

• the act of making and recording a measurement
  
• the act of observing; taking a patient look
  
• facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor"
  
• notice: the act of noticing or paying attention; "he escaped the notice of the police"
  
• a remark expressing careful consideration

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

 

What process or technique (method) do we 'apply' to this?

It depends on the context in which the observation is made. There is no absolute answer, except that it's context dependent.

 

 

Is it just something that 'happens', so we don't even need to think about it?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Again, it depends on context.

 

 

What do you think observing is?

See above. I agree with the accepted definitions.

 

 

What's an observation?

 

See above. This has been addressed.

[Fred56]

Is it just something that 'happens', so we don't even need to think about it?

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Again, it depends on context.

Sometimes? So it's a random thing? Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't?

w.r.t. context, what defines a 'context', as such (I mean in terms of the conditions available, or whatever).

[iNow]

Sometimes?

Yes.

 

So it's a random thing?

Maybe.

 

Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't?

 

Yes (except the verb was originally "do" not "can").

 

 

 

 

w.r.t. context, what defines a 'context', as such (I mean in terms of the conditions available, or whatever).

 

Here ya go:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+context

 

 

The circumstances relevant to something under consideration.

 

edms-service.web.cern.ch/edms-service/glossary.html

[Fred56]

Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't?

 

Yes (except the verb was originally "do" not "can").

 

So then it's: sometimes we do, sometimes we don't?

[Mr Skeptic]

Gaining knowledge about "the real world" via an interaction with it, especially by sight. This would be the definition used in science.

 

Sometimes an observation might also be noticing an implication that you had not seen before.

[iNow]

So then it's: sometimes we do, sometimes we don't?

The answer is plainly in the posts above.

[Fred56]

Sure, no problem. Plainly all I have to do is believe absolutely in 'the posts'.

 

Nonetheless, if you, or anyone else who happens to look at this thread, thinks that there is nothing to discuss here -it's all been said, I acknowledge your opinion.

 

I also acknowledge my ability to keep going, if that's ok (or even if it isn't).

[iNow]

Sure, no problem. Plainly all I have to do is believe absolutely in 'the posts'.

No. There is no belief involved. Just... yep... you guessed it... observation. All you have to do is read to the posts to verify what was and what was not said. It's not hard, so why are you making it that way?

 

 

So much for this opening plea, eh?

 

...let's try to prevent this thread from being closed (like your other "What is ___" threads) due to trollesque behavior.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sure, no problem. Plainly all I have to do is believe absolutely in 'the posts'.

 

Nonetheless, if you, or anyone else who happens to look at this thread, thinks that there is nothing to discuss here -it's all been said, I acknowledge your opinion.

 

When enough people have an opinion about what a definition is, it becomes a fact. This is because definitions are arbitrary, so you just need to get people to agree with a definition and that's that.

 

Definitions (unlike facts) are subject to truth by consensus. If you are on the side with less people, your definition loses. Complaining about it won't accomplish anything.

 

I also acknowledge my ability to keep going, if that's ok (or even if it isn't).

 

That's not necessarily true. If you misbehave, the mods can close your threads, and if you misbehave a lot, they might ban you. So you might not be able to keep going on with this.

[mooeypoo]

Look, without definitions we have no language, and definitions are accepted in the world because they are definitions. That's the definition of definition. Don't like it? well.. invent your own language.

 

The fact you openned another thread with the SAME question as the one that was closed without changing your methodologies of debate is borderline deceptive, if not minus the 'borderline'.

 

You still haven't answered any of our questions to you, or related to any of our answers, so I can't help but wondering, Fred: What is your agenda?

 

 

You seem to repeatedly try and convince us all that Science is a belief system, that observations are not real data, that Evolution has an 'agenda' or an 'agent' behind it..

 

You're using falacies to ignore what you don't want to answer, and you tend to troll, though we do our best to be patient.

 

I think, however, that there is a deeper agenda here. Perhaps my vast experience with creationists made me paranoid, but looking at your methodology of argument and the way you ignore what you don't feel like answering, *and* seeing your attempt to define science as a belief with some entity behind it, I think you owe us an answer about this.

 

I really -- REALLY -- do.

 

~moo

 

Sure, no problem. Plainly all I have to do is believe absolutely in 'the posts'.

Don't condescend. You didn't understand what he said because you didn't read the entire post, or chose to ignore it. What the heck is "beleive in the post"?? He answered you in those posts. He answered the same question you asked.

 

Geesh.

 

 

Nonetheless, if you, or anyone else who happens to look at this thread, thinks that there is nothing to discuss here -it's all been said, I acknowledge your opinion.

If you think a dictionary is a collection of opinions, you have a serious problem in understanding the usage of language.

 

He posted definitions, Fred... instead of condescending, you can try to specify what, exactly, you didn't agree with in those *definitions*.

 

I also acknowledge my ability to keep going, if that's ok (or even if it isn't).

 

Yah, we all acknowledge it, over and over again, that's the point. Are you afraid of dealing with the *entirety* of a subject? Is that why you consistently nitpick the points you want to answer?

 

 

~moo

[Fred56]

I also acknowledge my ability to keep going[/b'], if that's ok (or even if it isn't).

 

That's not necessarily true. If you misbehave, the mods can close your threads, and if you misbehave a lot, they might ban you. So you might not be able to keep going on with this.

Wouldn't want to do anything like ask a tricky question, then. Like this one: "w.r.t. context, what defines a 'context', as such (I mean in terms of the conditions available, or whatever)."

Or get condescending, or call you all a bunch of thickos (something you appear quite happy to accuse me of with surprising regularity -don't get me wrong: it cracks me up quite a bit, in fact), I might get stopped, or something, right?

Don't condescend. You didn't understand what he said because you didn't read the entire post' date=' or chose to ignore it. What the heck is "beleive in the post"?? He answered you in those posts. He answered the same question you asked.

 

Geesh.[/quote']

That looks a bit condescending, are you sure you aren't guilty of the crime you're accusing me of? (try to chuckle a bit when you read that, for my and your -and everyone else's sake, huh?)

observers 'aware' of the structure of the Hamiltonians (which are “objective' date='” can be found out without “collateral damage”, and in the real world, are known well enough in advance) can also divine the sets of [b']preferred pointer states (if they exist) and thus discover the preexisting state of the system.

 

One way to understand this environment-induced objective existence is to recognize that observers—especially human observers—never measure anything directly. Instead, most of our data about the Universe is acquired when information about the systems of interest is intercepted and spread throughout the environment.

 

The environment preferentially records the information about the pointer states, and hence, only information about the pointer states is readily available.

 

This argument can be made more rigorous in simple models, whose redundancy can be more carefully quantified.

What process or technique (method) do we apply to this?

What do you think observing is? What's an observation?

Do you think you understand what this question is asking? Do you think you know the answer?

No-one has posted much that has added anything to the 'standard' ideas, do you understand what the ideas are?

Should I be asking if anyone is able to supply some notion of what they actually think, instead of what Wikipedia has to say, or some book or other?

[Mr Skeptic]

Fred56, if you are asking for the context of "misbehave", it is right here in the rules section. Feel free to argue with the mods about what exactly the rules mean

 

ScienceForums.net reserves to right to enforce this policy as we see fit so that people may not use the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of the rule.

 

Section 1: Purpose Statement

ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals' date=' regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science.

 

Section 2: Posting

To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

 

1. [b']Be civil.[/b]

1. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

2. Avoid the use of vulgar language.

3. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.

4. Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting.

2. Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not.

3. Keep posts legal.

1. References to the personal commitment of an illegal activity are forbidden, with the following qualifications:

1. References to drug use are not permissible unless the references are scientific or otherwise useful as part of a discussion.

2. References involving felonies are not acceptable and will be removed.

3. Discussion of methods to circumvent restrictions made at any level, including school Internet filtering or parental controls, is prohibited.

2. Discussion relating to hazardous or illegal chemicals or procedures is prohibited, unless the discussion:

1. Is legal to disclose to the general public under the laws of the United States,

2. Contains a warning of the potential hazards,

3. Contains a warning describing the legality of the procedure.

4. The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

6. Posting pornography or other sexually explicit material intentionally (or linking directly to a site containing such material, either on the site itself or popups launched by that page) will result in a permanent ban from the site.

7. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your site in your signature, but don't go around making dozens of threads about it.

8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

9. Registering more than one account to yourself is not permitted without administrative approval. "Sockpuppet" accounts (those registered with the intent of using them to spread the original member's ideas, or for other malicious purposes) will be banned on sight, as well as those registered to evade a ban.

 

 

 

Section 3: Rule Violations

Violations of the rules will be dealt with as follows:

 

1. Removal of the post in question and issuance of warning points.

2. When 25 warning points are accumulated, the user is automatically banned for several days.

3. Repeat offenders will then be banned permanently.

4. If a repeat offender evades a ban to come back, his/her Internet service provider may be contacted.

 

Section 4: Contacting Staff

If you would like to report a forum policy violation, make use of the Report This Post () button for each post. This will alert forum staff of the problem.

 

If you would like to report a copyright violation, or you need to speak with forum administrators for legal reasons, use the following address:

 

staff [at] scienceforums [dot] net

 

Section 5: Legalese

ScienceForums.net staff will not be held liable for any damages, be they indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or exemplary that you may incur by using this site or information contained within. Opinions expressed by users do not always represent the opinions of ScienceForums.net staff. ScienceForums.net cannot verify the validity of all statements made and is not responsible for the accuracy or correctness of information contained in any threads, posts, private messages, or comments.

 

Unless otherwise specified, all content is property of its respective author, including all threads, posts, and comments. All names, trademarks and images are property of their respective owners. The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of information contained within this site is expressly prohibited without the prior explicit consent of ScienceForums.net and the author of the content.

 

vBulletin is copyright © 2000-2007 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

 

ScienceForums.net is based in the United States, and all posts must conform to the laws established there. Posts that violate United States Law will be referred to the proper authority, regardless of the legal status of the post in the user's country if different from the United States.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Fred, I believe I closed the previous thread for a reason. You do not seem to have changed your means of argument, so I will close this thread too. Read what mooeypoo said carefully. She has a point, you know.