Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecan do it


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:noPMe.320$GV7.22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wade wrote:
>
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >>Glenn wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>>news:1124262127.774135.95970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>>Glenn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"John Harshman" wrote
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>This is a tall order. Good luck. But Harshman knows how to do
> >>>>>>>"science," he can do it. His definition of "observations" will
> >>>>>>> solve everything.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Still confused on that point? Tell me: have we observed atoms?
> >
> >
> >>>>>Most any day of the week.
> >>>>>http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/atomo.html
> >
> >
> >>>>>Have you observed a dino arm turning into a wing?
> >
> > <<< snip >>>
> >
> >>So, as your extract so correctly describes, what you are seeing is a
> >>three-diminensional plot of the charge cloud around atoms, not the
> >>atoms themselves.
> >>
> >>Hint: this is not equivalent to seeing clouds, or looking through a
> >>microscope.
> >
> >
> > To spin this off some, did Helen Keller ever "observe" anything
> > as an adult?
> >
> > So if we admit to there being other routes of scientific observation
> > than direct site, let's consider measuring mass.
> >
> > If a blind scientist named Archy Medes determines that two objects
> > displace the same volume of water, and then weighs them both on
> > a balance by the addition of standard weights (braille labeled),
> > he can observe their respective densities.
> >
> > <Aside>
> > I'm thinking this is the beginning of a very good science fair
> > project on observing/measuring without using vision. </Aside>
> >
> > If one admits that observing a mass can be acheived without using
> > relying on direct vision, and in fact vision doesn't allow one
> > to observe mass anyway, we can quickly get to observing molecules
> > and atoms and electrons.
> >
> > Focusing on vision for observation in science is simply wrong.
> >
> The real question is "What separates observation from inference?" You
> have shown that sensory modality is not the proper criterion, if indeed
> there is one. Now what?
>
There is no now what, John. And there is no real question. An example of an
observation is in measuring the time it takes a runner to travel a mile. An
example of an inference is based on that observation, a reasoning that the
runner has legs or why the runner can produce a certain force in a certain
time. You have none to stand on. Facts must come before inferences, and they
are not equal.

.

Relevant Pages