Scientific inquiry

[Doctor X]

This is probably in the wrong forum, but I don't see a general science forum. Let me ask a question: Which comes first and what is the relationship between observation and theory.

[Ophiolite]

In most instances observations will come first. However, keep in mind that this is a cyclic process.

 

An observation raises a question. The question leads either to other observations, or to a speculation. The speculation becomes a question. The questions spawns further observations. These change the character of the speculation and raise further questions. The questions become more formal and are investigated systematically. The speculation becomes a hypothesis. It is shared with others who do their best to destroy it. Question, observe, modify hypothesis. Repear until done.

 

At some point one has many different kinds of observations, experimental data and theoretical underpinnings, supported by the work of many individuals and teams. Arguably one now has a theory.

[Doctor X]

I was having a discussion with a guy concerning the scientific method where he said that you can't discard observed phenomena (using our perceptions) due to a lack of scientific evidence. However we are discussing phenomena which can be explained via the evidence (namely audio).

 

I basically said, "if you can't explain the difference you believed you heard then you should remain skeptical of it. That it's a reasonable position to take".

 

Anything wrong with that?

[Ophiolite]

I'm not exactly clear what your first sentence means:

 

His claim "You can't discard phenomena just because there is no scientific evidence for them."

 

or

 

"You can't discard phenomena because there is no scientific evidence to justify discarding the observations."

 

Skepticism should always be the default postion. So your statement seems justified. Notice that I withhold an absolute confirmation because without knowing the full context I remain skeptical.

[Doctor X]

I'll send you a PM for further info. BTW, thank you for your input.

[Phi for All]

I'll send you a PM for further info. BTW, thank you for your input.

Is there a reason you can't share this with the rest of the membership? Behind-the-scenes discussions are limited in their productivity.

[Ophiolite]

I second what Phi for All has said. I would be reluctant to conduct further discussion in private via pm unless there was some issue that could create danger for individuals. I cannot see how that would be the case here. Also relying exclusively on input from me is placing a great restriction on the potential quality of response/commentary/advice you might get.

[Doctor X]

Is there a reason you can't share this with the rest of the membership? Behind-the-scenes discussions are limited in their productivity.

 

I'm normally reluctant to provide links to active discussions I'm involved in but I suppose it couldn't hurt :

 

Here you go : http://www.avforums....23tqi031c4tgul1

 

I'm Vaughan. This is a cable thread ... just to prepare you for what you know is coming. Byrd is the resident agnostic/devils advocate who is questioning my position on observations and evidence.

 

Take a look and report back.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Doctor X

[neil2366]

This is probably in the wrong forum, but I don't see a general science forum. Let me ask a question: Which comes first and what is the relationship between observation and theory.

 

Thank you for post. This is perhaps most important question for all of us to understand ,isn't it? Is there any tools we have besides human sences and its interpretation through brain what we know(our memory,experience,knowledge) as our conclusion and where our sences limited using instruments invented by human mind based on previous knoledge? everything we have is conclusion from past that we use and hoping to find total picture? Can we ever find total picture from that past which is limited? ofcourse we can find limited ,which can be detected through observation and put in form of limited understanding as a theory,which is self evident as there are many theory and many more will surface based on limited observation.Isn't it afair question that what is that prevent relationship between observation & theory?

 

In most instances observations will come first. However, keep in mind that this is a cyclic process.

 

An observation raises a question. The question leads either to other observations, or to a speculation. The speculation becomes a question. The questions spawns further observations. These change the character of the speculation and raise further questions. The questions become more formal and are investigated systematically. The speculation becomes a hypothesis. It is shared with others who do their best to destroy it. Question, observe, modify hypothesis. Repear until done.

 

At some point one has many different kinds of observations, experimental data and theoretical underpinnings, supported by the work of many individuals and teams. Arguably one now has a theory.

 

 

It seems everything is cyclic process in universe.isn't it? Isn't it possible that obesrvation & detection perhaps a phase of total cyclic process? In other words detection is a time (sequential) oriented process where other phase of total cyclic process (simultaneous) which has a much smaller time gap which by any means can not be detectd but perhaps can be understand mathamatically?

[Ophiolite]

I haven't read the entire discussion, but here is a provisional thought. I think you and Byrd are saying almost the same thing, but with a subtle difference that creates the impression of disagreement. Does the following sound plausible?

 

Byrd is saying that we should not discard observations since these form part of the evidential base from which hypotheses are built and validated. While we may accord some observations more weight than others, all should be retained as raw data.

 

You are saying that we should discard interpretations of observations that have been shown to be improbable or impossible by other, more substantial, observations from the evidential base.

 

Thoughts?

[Doctor X]

You basically hit the nail on the head regarding our respective positions and explained them in a way I probably could not. Not all observations are equally credible. I'm not sure if you guys are familar with the usual audio snake oil claims? This is the science forum (well not this specific forum but you know what I mean) so I assume you are, but I have no idea what you know. Probably a hell of a lot more than me.

[ajb]

Let me ask a question: Which comes first and what is the relationship between observation and theory.

 

In most of physics observation comes first. Condensed matter physics, for example, has had plenty of surprises for us.

 

However, if one looks at high energy physics (particle physics) then theory seems to be leading the way, generally.