Talk:Observation

Older comments

This could do with some mention of observation in science and in other disciplines... Martin

I just merged an article discussing observation in philosophy. I didn't touch the content, and it could use some more work. Akerkhof

---

The form of observation in this article is naturalistic, which is a valid stage in the development of knowledge. Great biologists are typically naturalists as youths. Stephen Jay Gould. Konrad Lorenz. Charles Darwin, even.

A phenomenological view is still acceptable when developing a science. Where to draw the line. The most advanced physics can be found in the history of the universe, which we are getting from observatories.

Even the odd stellar objects which are being cataloged, basically as curiosities, at this stage, can be viewed as examples of stellar evolution. Hence even astronomy benefits from a naturalistic viewpoint.

---

Or is the issue 'undisciplined observation'.

law of observation?

I've been looking for the law/axiom/statement of scientific observation that says (in some form or another) that the Observer has an affect on the things he observes. I cannot find such a statement. Does this statement exist, or did I just dream it?

Maybe you're looking for quantum measurement? Karol 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the omission. I added a paragraph on this concept. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

article neglects the uncertainty principle

This article needs to at least provide some form of reference to the fact that the uncertainty principle changes the nature of observation entirely and requires its redefinition. -- Natalinasmpf 07:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I need something!!!

I don't know the name of an observation involving a type of measurement or one that mainly involves the five senses. -- 67.166.184.160

Unhappy chappie

The definition strikes me as overly anthropomorphic. What do we know about the lion's "framework of previous knowledge and ideas" as it observes an antelope? I would prefer something like "Observation is the sensory assimilation of information by a living organism."

I'm uncomfortable with the statement "However, personal observations gathered without the aid of instruments are often unreliable­ and not always reproducible."

Many observations of the living world are made without the use of intstruments. If you notice a bee of some particular species taking nectar from a flower of another species, is that observation unreliable or irreproducible just because you didn't use an instrument?

The paragraph continues: "Therefore they are not of much use in exact sciences like physics." I think that this is incorrect and irrelevant to the topic of observation; and in any case, how did we get onto the subject of science, far less the so-called "exact" science of physics? What about observation in the arts?

I also disagree with the remark "Observation invariably requires logical thinking," since to collect observations does not necessarily require logical thinking. Analysing the observations does - but we do not always observe in order to analyse.

Search perception.

Observer

Someone apparently went and dablinked all physics-related references to observer into observation. I would much appreciate it if the parties responsible would treat the notion of an observer here, particularly as it applies to reference frames. It's kinda hard to talk about physics without an article treating observers properly. Silly rabbit 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubble's Observations

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving apart. I don't know all of his observations, but he for example observed that the light that is theoretically from that galaxy was a certain color. The idea that galaxies were moving apart was an hypothesis or theory. AThousandYoung 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Observation Techniques

I'm interested in techniques for observing. For example, how do soldiers and police observe the environment in order to detect threats? AThousandYoung 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May 9th '08 changes by Mikkalai

Although I agree with most of the changes you made - high five on cutting out that Big Bang crap - in the first sentence you removed the clause "or within some scientific usages..." which I added when I created the section The "observer" concept within special relativity. I realize that the previous wording of that sentence was extremely clumsy, I simply bolted on the S.R. clause because I couldn't think of an elegant way of putting it, but the thing is that your change removed all mention of the special relativity meaning of the term from the intro. This S.R. usage of the term is radically different in some respects from even other scientific meanings of it so I feel it's important that it be noted prominently right in the intro. So I'm hoping that we can come to some compromise on this. How about adding another sentence immediately after what you have: Observation is either an activity of a sapient or sentient living being (e.g. humans), which senses and assimilates the knowledge of a phenomenon or an instrumental recording of data. The term may also refer to the data collected during this activity. Also N.B. that within the scientific field of special relativity "observer" and "observation" have a meaning that connotes data or phenomena recorded or evaluated from a specific viewpoint as opposed to an omniscient or objective viewpoint. I'm not particular about the wording at all, feel free to propose your own. The tricky thing is the either-or formation of the first sentence... in S.R. an "observation" might be made by either a human or by an instrument, but the thing is that it's implying a subjective observation limited to a particular inertial reference frame. ...Maybe even a bulleted list, the way a disambiguation page looks? That would be unusual for an introduction but it seems almost appropriate here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Text

The first paragraph in the section "Observation as recording of scientific data" ends with the sentence fragment "In statistics, an observation, whether of a sample". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.96.152 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete 'self defining instruments'?

Observations aroused by self-defining instruments are often unreliable­. ...exact sciences...require instruments which do not define themselves. What are 'self-defining instruments'? If the intent here is to say that scientific instruments make measurements against objective standards and are comparable, while the observations made by human senses are not comparable, it needs to be put better. Unless there is some reason to keep this incomprehensible text I'm going to delete it. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely rewrote article, deleting text in question. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Observstion

Observation of a unit, in either material or immaterial space time, creates a ‘truth’ which is the duality of the ‘symbol’ and its ‘meaning’. The symbol is static while meaning is dynamic and it is the synthesis of all the truths about the symbolized unit. A truth is observed in the mind. It is ‘perfect’ when the observed unit and its meaning are identical. Perfection of observation depends on the plurality of observed details, each detail a different truth consisting of a plurality of new truths. Description is controlled by the observer but not the plurality of details in the observed unit. The observer cannot define the truth accurately until he relates it to the plurality of other, independent truths. The sum of the truths belongs only to the observer. There is no communication between minds of various observers. If the observed material unit changes its location in space or in time, its previous state ceases to exist for the observer. This does not apply to the truths in the immaterial world because the previous observations remain in the form of the memory. In the immaterial medium the observer can position himself in any point of the plurality of observations within the memory. The memory is limited by the plurality of observations but the unit ‘now’, in which the memory is located, has unlimited capacity because it is unlimited plurality of ‘units’ of Nothingness, capable of being organized into any memory. Memory is independent from the material space time. Truths in the memory can be observed by the ‘self’ even when symbols are only in the immaterial world. Because motivation from the perfect centre is one directional, from the immaterial to the material space time, the spatial units in the immaterial world can create their copies in the material space time. Transfer of information between the two space times is possible because velocity of rotation of gravitons on the border between the two worlds is the same. It is the observer who creates difference between the two media because, in both media, he uses the unit of measurement of velocity of the flow of time applicable in his centre of observation. KK (92.24.41.242 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Merge with Naturalistic Observation?

Would a merge with naturalistic observation be possible? Or is the scientific and philosophical viewpoints too different? Kindergarten ped (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. The difference suddenly became glaringly obvious. :) Kindergarten ped (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good wiki wrticle

One of the few good articles on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meel11223 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

“Why does it always rain on me?”

What is the name of the observational bias caused by intrusiveness of events? Is it true that people may perceive the weather to be rainier than it is because being rained on is a more intrusive stimulus? If so then what is the name of this phenomenon? —James Haigh (talk) 2017-04-26T02:26:02Z

Do you mean like people perceiving air travel as more dangerous than auto travel when it is actually much safer, because airplane crashes are highly publicized? --Chetvorno^TALK 04:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of thing, but I'm more thinking from the perspective of why people form superstitions. I'm not talking about confirmation bias reïnforcing an existing expectation, because the effect that I'm thinking of applies regardless of, or in addition to, existing expectations and confirmation bias. I think it is known as ‘the <something> effect’, rather than ‘<something> bias’, but I can't remember and I've looked through over 20 articles and not found it, before asking here. —James Haigh (talk) 2017-04-26T21:38:33Z

Observation in science: Indirect Observation

This section needs a paragraph describing indirect observation and its importance to science, to counter the naive interpretation of observation as only meaning direct observation. See for example [Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference].

JDunning (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the first section Observation in science. It describes the use of measurement and scientific instruments to magnify human powers of "direct observation". ----Chetvorno^TALK 01:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"indirect observation" lacks coherence, common usage in culture notwithstanding. Observation is direct experience of reality. Any indirection incident upon observation such as theoretical inferences becomes at the point of indirection, something other than observation. The proper concept is "inference". 98.4.124.117 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, JDunning, the page you cite makes one ungrammatical reference to indirect observation, where it apparently conflates observation using instrumentation with something else. In general, observation with instrumentation is even more direct/reliable than that done with the unaided senses. Quarks are the paradigm indirect observations in this time, q.v. top quark. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

/* Change first sentence */

--Change first sentence from: Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source...

--Change first sentence to: Observation is a noumenon present with the phenomenal presence of space and being...

-"without self-reference, logic and mathematics become impossible, or at least, lack usefulness...Please read "Wikipedia: "Law of non-contradiction" "Circular reference", thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed language is obscurantist - oppose -----Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

-The language is apparentist for spacist and beingist,thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this definition: unsourced, obscurantist, WP:FRINGE, WP:POV --Chetvorno^TALK 01:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Qbservation is phenomenally sourced by science as its primary objective, nothing exist without the observation-how could it?, please read "Law of non-contradiction" and "Circular reference" in Wikipedia, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please put forward a case using references not your own opinions and learn to indent your comments

'active acquisition' is not a source, a link or an inline reference; the proposed descriptions, noumenon present with the phenomenal presence of space and being, and are normal existing language in Wikipedia, as sources, links or inline references, and have semantically more comprehensive meanings than the obscure phrase 'active aquisition', please go for the consensus, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

--Change my first change to: Observation is the phenomenal presence of human being existence.

This is a semantically more comprehensive sentence and is normal every day Wikipedia sourced language, not requiring more special referencing, Go for the consensus, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, please read WP:VERIFIABILITY: "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Your addition only cited other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources." (WP:CIRC) In addition, if your content is opposed by other editors, as this is, you should get consensus on this Talk page before editing the article (WP:CONSENSUS). Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 23:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...the source, I believe was from a Google search outside of Wikipedia "Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of ...", I give up for now, I will go to Sandbox and try to learn about sourcing and linking, thank you again, Arnold... "Arnlodg (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html, (bottom of eight paragraph),"In the same way gravitation in Einstein's theory arises not as a force propagating through spacetime, but rather as a feature of spacetime itself."(Universe); That observation would be a necessary feature also of spacetime; thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree the page is a reliable source. However I don't see that it says anything about observation in general. The paragraph you quote above doesn't even contain the word "observation". You seem to be drawing a conclusion that observation is a (necessary) feature of spacetime because gravity is (BTW-I don't see how this follows). Wikipedia editors are not allowed to base content on conclusions they have drawn from sources, only from the source statements themselves. This is called WP:SYNTHESIS and is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you want to write in the article that observation is a necessary feature of spacetime, you need to find a source that says explicitly "observation is a necessary feature of spacetime". --Chetvorno^TALK 02:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

/*/*Change lead sentence to: Observation is a feature of spacetime*/*/

Change from: Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source...

Change to: Observation is a feature of spacetime and observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source...

"In the same way gravitation in Einstein's theory arises not as a force propagating through spacetime, but rather as a feature of spacetime itself."(Universe); (bottom of eight paragraph), That observation would also be a, necessary, feature of spacetime; thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In the first place, your conclusion seems to me a complete non-sequitur. Just because gravity (a physical theory resulting from observation) is a feature of spacetime (another theory resulting from observation), why does that prove observation in general is a feature of spacetime? Second, your lead sentence is based on a conclusion you have drawn from the source. Your source doesn't say observation is a feature of spacetime; it doesn't say anything about observation, does not even include the word. Wikipedia articles cannot include facts which have been inferred from sources by editors; this is called WP:SYNTHESIS "Do not combine material from multiple sources [or different parts of the same source] to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Wikipedia articles cannot be based on WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which includes "...any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." If you want to make the lead say observation is a feature of spacetime, you must cite a source that says "observation is a feature of spacetime". --Chetvorno^TALK 14:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I am desperate to provide a source; but, that the knowledge, via concepts we have today is all post modern, in 'combining material from many sources'; even spacetime has become combined as nature, universe, cosmos, .. and all of these concepts are only fundamentally possible because of observation, making it their equal in pursuits towards objectivity, please think about this attitude towards knowledge (also, isn't interesting-quotes of Einstien have become part of everyday reasoning), thanks again...Arnlodg (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to get this into the article? It seems from your edits as though you are crusading to get your particular point of view into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for this. It is just an encyclopedia, which is supposed to have a WP:Neutral point of view; this means "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your point of view, and my point of view, do not matter; they should not influence the article. There are plenty of other sites on the web for publishing cutting edge research and your own views. Maybe instead you could write your views at Wikibooks; it has no requirement of WP:VERIFIABILITY, no one would stop you from writing whatever you want. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur - these attempts over multiple articles are wasting the time of many editors and you're going to end up with an ANI report if you carry on like this-----Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Addition of examples of observation in science and how it has played a role in the development of Science

I think an example of how observation is an essential component of the manner in which development in the area of science comes about would be good to include. For example, the inclusion of how the observation by Galileo of how objects behaved with respect to free-fall was an important part in refuting Aristotle's faulty philosophy of motion. This example of how to verify theories and hypotheses we make in our minds we must go out and measure the behavior of objects in the real world. ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

HTML 119.158.46.150 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)