In this paper, I will seek to discuss the role that observational evidence plays in theory testing and scientific discovery. I am in support of Francis Bacon’s theory that observation (or experiences as he termed them) is the best way to understand and discover critical things about nature when developing and/or improving scientific theories. While most of the general philosophical literature on observation is mostly focused on theory testing, this information is also applicable to other aspects like theory invention and modification. I will also do a brief discussion of the arguments against observation being crucial for theory testing, and I will make a counter-argument for each. I seek to prove the fact that observational data is theory-laden and that observation has been historically critical in concluding the scientific practice.
Scientists extensively use the principle of observation on both natural and experimentally derived effects and objects to obtain evidence for their experiments. Several questions arise when it comes to the role of observational evidence on theory testing. Observational evidence is of vital and philosophical interest when it comes to the development of tools and techniques for scientific experiments, the application of scientific theories to solve real-life problems, and scientific discovery. The philosophical literature on theory and observation focuses on the evident distinction that exists between data that is observable and that which is unobservable (Estany, 2001). Aristotle, for instance, extensively used observational evidence in his philosophical papers, and some of these included animal dissection (Roberts & Pashler, 2000). However, observation only came to be an extensive topic that is discussed in extensive detail during the 20 th century after logical empiricists brought about a transformation in how this concept is considered.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The biggest reason why it took so long for the role of observation in theory testing to be considered substantial is mainly that observing was for a long time compared to experimenting. Most people typically consider observing as basic as just noticing some interesting aspects and putting it into consideration or to simply perceive the results of an experiment (Franklin, et al., 2000). However, philosophers and scientists like Robert Boyle, Ian Hacking, and Harry Collins, among others, at some point came together to make a serious distinction between experimenting and observing. The objectivity of observational evidence makes it a better alternative to cultural and ethnic factors when it comes to evaluating scientific theories (Estany, 2001). This observation also makes observation evidence critical when it comes to theory testing because the users will no longer have to rely on authorities when deciding which theories to accept.
Reasons in Favor of the Thesis
The main factor that makes observation critical for theory testing is the fact that observation is an exclusively perceptual process (Brown, 2013). Most of the things that scientists investigate are not tuned to do the necessary interactions with human perceptual systems, which are needed to produce the corresponding perceptual experiences. However, the truth is that scientists do not have to exclusively rely on their perceptual systems for them to collect the needed evidence when conducting their research (Franklin, et al., 2000). An experiment by Feverabend suggests that just as measuring equipment can be used to measure the amount of a quantity of interest, it is also possible to test a theory against both its outputs and the records of human perception (Bositis, 2008). The results of the experiment by Feverabend, combined with the distinction presented by Helmholtz between artificial observation and perception show that most scientists consider anything registered during their experiments as observables, whether or not they can register on their senses.
On the other hand, some processes are convoluted so much that it is almost impossible to determine if any observation has been made, for instance, the brain’s functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI). Terms such as ‘observation reports’ and ‘observation’ are more common in philosophical writings than they are in scientific ones. Philosophers who use these terms may consider observation as just a portion of other umbrella data-producing methods. That way, the philosophers will not have to pay too much attention in trying to figure out which methods are truly observational, and which ones are not ( Brown, 2013 ). Instead, they can focus on figuring the questions that different data can answer, the credibility of the responses afforded, and how the data can be used effectively. This way, observation becomes essential for testing theories without necessarily giving much regard to the type of data observed.
Potential Objections
Philosophers who are empirically minded operate on the assumption that the value of an observational process is dependent on how sensitive the study is or the goals of the observation. In turn, this is also dependent on the thoroughness and adequacy of the theoretical claims used to determine the sensitivity (Bositis, 2008). For instance, consider a situation where a thermometer reading, e , is used to predict the temperature, t, of a patient. We can challenge such a scenario by challenging the theoretical claims presented that using the thermometer under different conditions will accurately indicate the patient’s temperature in favor of t. the truth is that some of the theoretical temperatures will be falsified to some extent due to environmental conditions, and this will consequently undermine the recorded value of e. That said, all observations and their use are theory-laden to some level.
Besides the equipment-generated observations, such as the example of the thermometer, other analogs such as the one presented by Norwood Hanson that seeing or smelling is a theory-laden undertaking. With that, a key question presents itself on how observations and observational processes can be trusted to deliver reality-based and objective constraints in science, yet they are theory-laden.
Refutation of objections
It is true that observations are theory-laden, and that this makes them to some extent not suitable for theory testing. However, a counter-argument that can be placed is that the theoretical claims that determine the value and effectiveness of the observational evidence may be correct. In that case, in as much as we do not have a defined way of establishing the correctness of the evidence presented, it will still be good enough for whatever use we decide to subject it to (Estany, 2001). This counters the argument presented against using theory-laden observational evidence.
Also, it is important to note that the process of scientific investigation is an ongoing one, and at one point, enough evidence and new considerations and research techniques could be presented to challenge and defend any argument that is presented against the process (Brown, 2013). Hopefully, this acceptability of the observational evidence will be accomplished relative to at least one stretch of time. While this is not a full guarantee of a breakthrough and that there will be no future challenges, it is still a major stride towards proving how essential observational evidence is when it comes to theory testing. Anyone aware of the fallible nature of science would not be surprised by such circumstances. However, this uncertainty is by no way a ground for skepticism. Rather, there is a perfect reason to trust the evidence that is currently available in as much as there are no logical possibilities for there not to be any epistemic challenges that will arise in the future (Roberts & Pashler, 2000).
Paul Feverabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Norwood Hanson further eliminated the existing suspicion regarding the objectivity of observational evidence. They presented the argument that it is not possible to make use of empirical evidence to discuss a theory without first making a personal commitment to the very theory ( Bositis, 2008 ). While some of the examples that these philosophers used to argue their point bear some equipment generated evidence, they still bring out observation as a perceptual process.
Conclusion
Several grammatical variants are used when referring to the terms ‘observation’ and/or ‘observational data,’ and these result in impressively different perceptual and non-perceptual processes. This diversity presents a reason to doubt whether the general accounts of observation and observational data are sufficient for use in theory testing. On the other hand, scientists are continually seeking ways to produce data that is not observational to avoid making the term vague to the readers. Regardless of the arguments presented against it, observational evidence plays a crucial role in theory testing and scientific discovery. Observational data is theory-laden and it comes in handy for theory testing as long as the theoretical claims presented are accurate.
References
Bositis, D. A. (2008). Some observations on the participant method. Political Behavior , 10 (4), 333-348.
Brown, H. I. (2013). A theory-laden observation can test the theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 44 (3), 555-559.
Estany, A. (2001). The thesis of theory-laden observation in the light of cognitive psychology. Philosophy of Science , 68 (2), 203-217.
Franklin, et al., (2009). Can a theory-laden observation test the theory? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 40 (2), 229-231.
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological review , 107 (2), 358.
