The Importance of Observation Before Theory

The belief that science starts from begins with observation, and that observes produces a secure basis from which knowledge can be derived is naïve. It is an observation that I founded on two assumptions. The first theory is that science starts with observation, and the second is that observation produces a firm basis for knowledge. An example that is used to refute this claim is that of two people observing the same object. Since the two individuals will see the same object from the same position, the same rays of lights will strike their retinas producing the same image. The information will travel to their distinct brains, which will lead to the two observers seeing the same object. 

However, it is not true that the two observers will see the same object. Sufficient evidence shows that viewing the same object, under similar conditions and distance does not produce the same visual experiences to the observers. Visual experience is not determined by information that enters the eye alone. The example of a drawing of a staircase is used to illustrate the refutation of observation before theory. When one looks at the drawing at first, it is possible to see the staircase with a visible upper surface. It is also possible to see a staircase with a visible under the surface. When an individual views the staircase longer, he/she involuntarily see the staircase shifting from one viewed from under to one viewed from above (Chalmers, 1982). 

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to argue that since the staircase remains the same object, the images produced by the retina remain the same. Regardless of whether the staircase is viewed from below or above, it is clear that relies on something other than the images produced by the retina. The image of the staircase has also been shown to members of an African tribe whose culture does not recognize images in three-dimension. The members would not see the drawing as a staircase, but an assortment of two-dimensional lines. These two illustrations show that the perceptual experience of a viewer is not determined by the images formed by their retinas, but previous experience, knowledge, and expectations. 

To further illustrate the weaknesses of using observation as a firm basis for knowledge, the experiment of showing playing-cards for short periods and asking the subjects to identify them is used. When a usual pack of cards was used in the experiment, the subjects had no trouble identifying them. However, when different cards were used such as intruding a red Ace of Diamonds, the subjects identified the cards incorrectly (Chalmers, 1982). They viewed a Red Ace of Diamonds as a normal Ace of Spades. From this experience, one can conclude that the subjective executions of the subjects determined their experiences. When the subjects were told that the pack of cards contained different cards, they started to identify the cards correctly. It means that a change in their knowledge and expectations lead to a change in their visual experience despite vowing the same physical objects. 

A final example used to illustrate this point is that of a children's puzzle that entails identifying a human face between foliage in a drawing of a tree. At first, the viewer only sees branches, leaves and the trunk. However, it changes once the human face has been identified. Even after the solution has been found, the image in the retina does not change because it still comprises foliage (Chalmers, 1982). Even if the viewer returns later and views the puzzle, he/she can readily identify the human face. From this experiment, it is apparent that what an individual sees is determined by previous experience and knowledge. 

Supporters of using observation as a firm basis for knowledge may argue that the viewers see the same object, but interpret them differently. However, it is not true because the observer has only direct and immediate contact with his/her experiences. These experiences are not static but depend on the knowledge and expectations of the observer (Chalmers, 1982). What the physical situation provides is the image on the observer's retina. Nonetheless, the observer has no direct perceptual connection with this image. 

The relationship between theory and observation is also evidence showing that observation is not a firm basis for scientific knowledge. The argument that the foundation of scientific knowledge is offered by observations made by an impartial and unprejudiced us untenable. The example that is used to illustrate this point is Heinrich Hertz experiment in 1888 that aimed at detecting radio waves. To remain unbiased when making observations during the experiment, Hertz was supposed to document the readings in all the meters, the existence or nonexistence of sparks at different locations in the circuit and the measurement of the circuit (Chalmers, 1982). Additionally, he was supposed to have recorded the measurements of the laboratory, the weather, and even the color of his shoes. These were irrelevant information to the experiment being performed by Hertz. Furthermore, Hertz was trying to test Maxwell's electromagnetic theory to see if he could generate sparks that were hypothesized in theory. From Hertz experiment, it is clear that theory precedes observation. Observations and experiments are conducted to test a theory, and observations that apply to the theory being tested are recorded. 

However, it is important to note that the guidance provided by theories concerning the observations that are relevant may be misleading. In some cases, important observations may be ignored as shown by hertz experiments to test Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. One factor that appeared irrelevant during the experiments was the walls of the laboratory. According to Maxwell's theory, radio waves should have the same velocity as light. Hertz observed that the radio waves produced in the experiment had a different velocity to that of light. The reason why the radio waves had a different velocity was uncovered after his death (Chalmers, 1982). The radio waves that were being released by his equipment were being reflected back to the equipment by the walls of the laboratory. The dimensions of the laboratory were relevant to the experiment but were not included in Maxwell's theory. Nevertheless, the incomplete and fallible theories that form the basis of scientific knowledge can provide inaccurate guidance to an observer. The weaknesses in these theories can be solved by extending and enhancing them, and not by dementing irrelevant observations. 

Therefore, the theory-dependence observation refutes the claim that science begins with observation. Modern inductivists may attempt to avoid this literal interpretation by claiming that science begins with the unprejudiced and unbiased observation by differentiating the way a theory is discovered and how it is proven. Theories can be discovered through different ways such as an accident, inspiration, or through observation and calculations. Regardless of their discovery, new theories must be tested to determine if they correspond to scientific knowledge (Chalmers, 1982). Claims made by a theory must be determined through observation under different contexts. Distinguishing the approaches of discovery and validation does not mean that science begins with observation. Even when the modes of discovery and validation are separated, the claim that science starts with observation is still fallible because observation statements are based on theories. One can argue that theories are true after they have been validated through observation. However, statements made during observation are derived from theories. 

Reference 

Chalmers, A.F. (1982). “What is This Thing Called Science?” Philadelphia: Open University Press.