Direct versus indirect

[fast]

I want expand my science vocabulary such that I can use the right words to refer to certain kinds of things that someone might pickup on as I ramble. Good luck. Afterall, this is me.

I looked up and saw Ms. Amber. Her hair was nice. I directly saw her, and I directly saw her hair.

To her left was a mirror, and when I looked at the mirror, I saw a reflection of Ms. Betty. Ms. Betty was behind me. I saw her indirectly. Directly, I saw her reflection. Her hair was nice too, but I never saw her hair directly, as I only directly saw her reflection, but I did notice that her hair was nice even though I only saw it indirectly.

In science, as we look at things on a very small scale, we see things that we cannot directly observe, and we do this with instrumentation, so in my world, we are not observing things we know to exist directly but rather indirectly--through the lens of a microscope, for instance.

Here's my problem, I suspect there's a few more distinctions to be had as we delve deeper into the abyss of the very small. Let's suppose for a moment that my general view between the distinction between the directly observed objects and the indirectly observed objects are different for scientists such that what I call direct is referred to as visible to the naked eye and what I call indirect is actually called direct if it can been seen with instrumentation. Talk about an unfortunate play on words!

What this means is to the scientist, we can directly see cells. Okay, so anything really small we can observe through instrumentation can be said to be directly seen. Awe, but there are some things so dang small that we cannot observe them through instrumentation. In those instances, the scientist might say we can indirectly observe them--for instance, by proxy, or the effects that occur that we can measure and then infer their existence.

This brings me to the front door of yet another layer of craziness that I just don't know the words to. See, some of these really really small things that we know exists is via deduction and measured effects, but isn't there another group of really really small things that we merely believe exist that belong to the group of theoretical existents?

I get to a point where I don't understand the generally held view of things. For instance, I have no clue how to properly describe the difference between an electron and the much larger subatomic particles. I have this idea in my head that some subatomic particles can be directly observed (in a scientific sense) whereas other much smaller one's can only be indirectly observed.

Is there a way to categorize in scientific terms the distinctions I'm trying to make?

 

[skepticalbip]

When science says something is detected indirectly what is meant is that it isn't observed but its effects on something else is observed which indicates that it is there. e.g. We can not directly observe a black hole but the orbits of stars effected by its gravity can be observed so we have indirectly learned a great deal about the black hole (or indirectly "observed" it). We directly observe the stars that are effected by that black hole even though it is through our instrumentation.

 

[fast]

When science says something is detected indirectly what is meant is that it isn't observed but its effects on something else is observed which indicates that it is there. e.g. We can not directly observe a black hole but the orbits of stars effected by its gravity can be observed so we have indirectly learned a great deal about the black hole (or indirectly "observed" it). We directly observe the stars that are effected by that black hole even though it is through our instrumentation.

Class 1: direct observation without instrumentation (seeing a person standing in front of us)
Class 2: direct observation with instrumentation like microscope and telescope (cells and moon craters)
Class 3: indirect detection using math to calculate effects from something else actually observed (black hole)

Where does deduction come into play, and is it different for subatomic particles than stars? I'm guessing a proton is class 2 whereas an electron is class 3. Stars, well, heck, it's either class 1 or class 4, where the light we see is considered the star (class 1) or if the star truly died out millions of years ago and we simply see the light and not the star, then some deduction and some math is in order (possible class 4). Still trying to work this out.

 

[fast]

Bump

 

[Bomb#20]

Bump

Well, here's my 2 cents. You don't ever see Ms. Amber other than seeing the light that came from her; if that's good enough to say you see Ms. Amber directly, then it's certainly good enough to say you see a star directly, even if the star blew up last week and you're seeing old light, assuming it's a naked-eye star and/or you looked through a telescope -- I mean actually looked, and the starlight was concentrated onto your retina. (Any decent modern telescope won't do that, of course -- it will concentrate the starlight onto a camera and afterwards you'll look at a photograph. If a photo isn't indirect, I don't know what is.)

At the other end, no, there's no difference between a proton and an electron. We can't see either by any direct or indirect means; all we ever do is infer their presence from stuff around them. The classic view of subatomic particles is a cloud chamber; what you're seeing is thousands of water droplets that condensed from water vapor in response to a particle shooting past. It's no different from seeing hot gas spiraling into a black hole.

The interesting intermediate question is whether we can see atoms, a hundred thousand times bigger than a proton. A scanning-tunneling microscope gives us impressive visuals of matter with individual atoms distinctly visible. But of course we aren't seeing light from the matter; in effect it's a super-electron-microscope, with a computer translating electrical signals into calculations of distance from the camera to the scanned surface, generating a 3-D mathematical model of the material, and then rendering it. Certainly not seeing directly; but does it count as indirectly seeing, or only as inferring from its effect on the microscope's voltage sensor? Ya got me...

 

[fast]

If a photo isn't indirect, I don't know what is.)

There is a difference between a picture and what a picture is a picture of. For instance, there is a difference between a cat and a picture of a cat. If I look at a picture directly then look through a mirror and see a reflection of the picture, then I will have directly looked at the picture then indirectly observed the picture, but in both instances, it's the picture (and not what the picture is a picture of); however, since I do see what is depicted in the picture in both instances (direct and indirect observation of the picture), then although I am not seeing the cat directly, there does seem to be an indirect observation of the cat; moreover, I'm indirectly seeing the cat whether I directly see the picture or indirectly see the picture.

[/end of starting to argue and failing miserably]

It's late

 

[Juma]

If a photo isn't indirect, I don't know what is.)

There is a difference between a picture and what a picture is a picture of. For instance, there is a difference between a cat and a picture of a cat. If I look at a picture directly then look through a mirror and see a reflection of the picture, then I will have directly looked at the picture then indirectly observed the picture, but in both instances, it's the picture (and not what the picture is a picture of); however, since I do see what is depicted in the picture in both instances (direct and indirect observation of the picture), then although I am not seeing the cat directly, there does seem to be an indirect observation of the cat; moreover, I'm indirectly seeing the cat whether I directly see the picture or indirectly see the picture.

[/end of starting to argue and failing miserably]

It's late

Seen from my personal first hand view all observation are indirect. Everything we are aware of are representations.

Even the heat we feel when touching the hot stove is just an represenation of what is going on.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I want expand my science vocabulary such that I can use the right words to refer to certain kinds of things that someone might pickup on as I ramble. Good luck. Afterall, this is me.

I looked up and saw Ms. Amber. Her hair was nice. I directly saw her, and I directly saw her hair.

To her left was a mirror, and when I looked at the mirror, I saw a reflection of Ms. Betty. Ms. Betty was behind me. I saw her indirectly. Directly, I saw her reflection. Her hair was nice too, but I never saw her hair directly, as I only directly saw her reflection, but I did notice that her hair was nice even though I only saw it indirectly.

In science, as we look at things on a very small scale, we see things that we cannot directly observe, and we do this with instrumentation, so in my world, we are not observing things we know to exist directly but rather indirectly--through the lens of a microscope, for instance.

Here's my problem, I suspect there's a few more distinctions to be had as we delve deeper into the abyss of the very small. Let's suppose for a moment that my general view between the distinction between the directly observed objects and the indirectly observed objects are different for scientists such that what I call direct is referred to as visible to the naked eye and what I call indirect is actually called direct if it can been seen with instrumentation. Talk about an unfortunate play on words!

What this means is to the scientist, we can directly see cells. Okay, so anything really small we can observe through instrumentation can be said to be directly seen. Awe, but there are some things so dang small that we cannot observe them through instrumentation. In those instances, the scientist might say we can indirectly observe them--for instance, by proxy, or the effects that occur that we can measure and then infer their existence.

This brings me to the front door of yet another layer of craziness that I just don't know the words to. See, some of these really really small things that we know exists is via deduction and measured effects, but isn't there another group of really really small things that we merely believe exist that belong to the group of theoretical existents?

I get to a point where I don't understand the generally held view of things. For instance, I have no clue how to properly describe the difference between an electron and the much larger subatomic particles. I have this idea in my head that some subatomic particles can be directly observed (in a scientific sense) whereas other much smaller one's can only be indirectly observed.

Is there a way to categorize in scientific terms the distinctions I'm trying to make?

I don't see what you mean.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

All these things you are talking about are what we believe exist, one way or the other. Our beliefs may be more or less certain and we may not share the same beliefs on everything. Direct or indirect doesn't make much difference except that historically it helped us understand that our beliefs may not be warranted. That may have been one contributing factor to the development of science. Clearly science has to rely more and more on indirect observation and highly theoretical inferences, not to mention costly gear and high energy, so it may come a point where very few people will take scientific pronoucements for granted. The question is not only whether science is true but what it is that science is saying to begin with. It might get to a point where only correct prediction will matter. Whether there are things like quarks or not will be seen as a purely technical aspect few people will be interested in.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

This seems to be veering into how philosophers would try to define what a direct observation was. As I understand the OP, it was intended to be for the purpose of understanding what science means when it says something was directly observed or indirectly observed.

An astronomer will say they are making a direct observation of a comet if they looking at an image of the comet on a computer screen even though the light of that comet when collected was bounced off several mirrors in the telescope, passed through filters, collected on an array of light detectors, digitized and sent to computer memory, processed, stored, recovered, reprocessed, and finally sent to the computer screen he is examining. Astronomers seldom actually look through telescopes. Even real time direct observations are made with the astronomer looking at a computer screen.

Meanwhile they have indirectly observed dark matter by noting the rotational characteristics of galaxies. We have observed dark matter's effects on the rotation but not dark matter itself

 

[Speakpigeon]

This seems to be veering into how philosophers would try to define what a direct observation was. As I understand the OP, it was intended to be for the purpose of understanding what science means when it says something was directly observed or indirectly observed.

An astronomer will say they are making a direct observation of a comet if they looking at an image of the comet on a computer screen even though the light of that comet when collected was bounced off several mirrors in the telescope, passed through filters, collected on an array of light detectors, digitized and sent to computer memory, processed, stored, recovered, reprocessed, and finally sent to the computer screen he is examining. Astronomers seldom actually look through telescopes. Even real time direct observations are made with the astronomer looking at a computer screen.

Meanwhile they have indirectly observed dark matter by noting the rotational characteristics of galaxies. We have observed dark matter's effects on the rotation but not dark matter itself

And I don't think there's much difference between the two modes. Scientifically it seems to be the same thing. Scientists shouldn't care much about the ontological assumption all human beings are tempted into as soon as they think they see something. It may affect their thinking here and there but mostly they want to ignore it.

Or so I believe.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

This seems to be veering into how philosophers would try to define what a direct observation was. As I understand the OP, it was intended to be for the purpose of understanding what science means when it says something was directly observed or indirectly observed.

An astronomer will say they are making a direct observation of a comet if they looking at an image of the comet on a computer screen even though the light of that comet when collected was bounced off several mirrors in the telescope, passed through filters, collected on an array of light detectors, digitized and sent to computer memory, processed, stored, recovered, reprocessed, and finally sent to the computer screen he is examining. Astronomers seldom actually look through telescopes. Even real time direct observations are made with the astronomer looking at a computer screen.

Meanwhile they have indirectly observed dark matter by noting the rotational characteristics of galaxies. We have observed dark matter's effects on the rotation but not dark matter itself

And I don't think there's much difference between the two modes. Scientifically it seems to be the same thing.

But then you probably haven't done many scientific measurements.

Scientists shouldn't care much about the ontological assumption all human beings are tempted into as soon as they think they see something. It may affect their thinking here and there but mostly they want to ignore it.

Or so I believe.
EB

Science doesn't really pay much attention to what is commonly meant by observe. Observe in science means to detect or measure or, in general, to acquire information about the subject, not necessarily to "eyeball it" as is most commonly used in normal conversation such as the OP seems to think. Most of what science observes can not be seen in the common sense. Science observes properties of a subject such as temperature, pressure, mass, density, acceleration, charge, frequency, energy level, pulse rate, etc,, etc. In my experience, the qualifiers of direct or indirect are rarely used unless there is some need or desire to insure that the reader understands how the measurement was made. The method is generally fairly obvious by the subject or how the paper is written. But there is a great difference in a direct and an indirect measurement.

A case where the qualifier of "direct" would be certainly added to a claim of something being observed is if someone actually directly observed something like dark matter. We have indirectly observed it for a while now but a direct observation would be big news - likely Nobel Prize worthy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And I don't think there's much difference between the two modes. Scientifically it seems to be the same thing.

But then you probably haven't done many scientific measurements.

Scientists shouldn't care much about the ontological assumption all human beings are tempted into as soon as they think they see something. It may affect their thinking here and there but mostly they want to ignore it.

Or so I believe.
EB

Science doesn't really pay much attention to what is commonly meant by observe. Observe in science means to detect or measure or, in general, to acquire information about the subject, not necessarily to "eyeball it" as is most commonly used in normal conversation such as the OP seems to think. Most of what science observes can not be seen in the common sense. Science observes properties of a subject such as temperature, pressure, mass, density, acceleration, charge, frequency, energy level, pulse rate, etc,, etc. In my experience, the qualifiers of direct or indirect are rarely used unless there is some need or desire to insure that the reader understands how the measurement was made. The method is generally fairly obvious by the subject or how the paper is written. But there is a great difference in a direct and an indirect measurement.

A case where the qualifier of "direct" would be certainly added to a claim of something being observed is if someone actually directly observed something like dark matter. We have indirectly observed it for a while now but a direct observation would be big news - likely Nobel Prize worthy.

Oh, I didn't know that attributing the Nobel prize was a scientific process.

So, I still don't see where's the difference.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh, I didn't know that attributing the Nobel prize was a scientific process.

So, I still don't see where's the difference.
EB

Direct measurements result in a direct observation.
Indirect measurements result in an indirect observation.

Looking at someone's financial statement results in a direct observation of their wealth.
Looking at how much someone spends on their lifestyle and girlfriend results in an indirect observation of their wealth.

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting OP, fast.

You are correct that in all sciences, researchers make a distinction between "direct" versus "indirect". Sometimes the may speak as though these are types of "observations", but I think that is a misnomer, and it really refers to types of evidence. A stimuli impacts our senses and gets represented to our consciousness. That is observation. Whether you are "seeing her hair is red" or "seeing your brains representation of the light reflected by her hair" is largely semantics and something mostly to let philosophers and stoners waste their time fighting over. Science refers to the mental representation formed as the thing observed. There are things that can go awry in the process of that observation, such that the variance in what your see does not perfectly correspond to variance in the objective properties of what you are looking at. That is why science uses large samples, repeated observations, and controlled conditions under which to make those observations.

Whether what you observe is direct or indirect evidence depends upon whether you are using what you observe to infer something else based upon assumptions (even if well supported) of causality between what you observed and the think you inferred. Your observation is direct evidence that her hair at that moment is red, your are using it as indirect evidence if you then infer from this that she has recessive genes related to hair color, or that she has a fiery personality and likes to be spanked.
I picked these examples because they are funny, but also because they illustrate that indirect evidence varies greatly in the soundness of the assumed causal relations.

Speaking of spanking, black holes are not observed, even indirectly, they are inferred using what is observed as indirect evidence for their existence.

As with most category boundaries, the one between whether an observation is being used to infer something else can get fuzzy. Instrumentation is near that boundary.
IF the instrumentation merely enhances the natural signal to amplify what impacts our senses, then it would be treated as direct evidence of the thing observed. If the instrumentation transforms the signal into another type of energy or observable event, like a signwave on a screen then it gets real close to the fuzzy boundary.
Some might argue that if the only way that the observed event would not correspond to the inferred event is if the instrumentation were not used properly, then it is close enough to direct evidence not to matter (e.g., a heart beat monitor in the hospital).

A good sign that you are using an observation as indirect evidence is that experts and non-experts (or sometimes just smart people and not so smart people) systematically disagree on the conclusion. This is because indirect evidence required inferential steps based on assumptions (or "knowledge" if they are validated) about causal relations. The two groups would generally agree that a women's hair is red and that they either see a pinpoint of light or not when looking through a telescope, but the non-experts wouldn't say they are seeing regressive genes. Novices don't know how to interpret instrumentation readouts in relation to the unseen thing giving rise to the observed signal. But if the relation is essentially 1:1 and constant, so long as the instrumentation is hooked up properly, then no one really cares. It matters more how much room for error there is in the inferential process and the number of other potential factors that could give rise to what was observed than whether an observation is truly "direct" evidence for a conclusion.

 

[Malintent]

If a photo isn't indirect, I don't know what is.)

There is a difference between a picture and what a picture is a picture of. For instance, there is a difference between a cat and a picture of a cat. If I look at a picture directly then look through a mirror and see a reflection of the picture, then I will have directly looked at the picture then indirectly observed the picture, but in both instances, it's the picture (and not what the picture is a picture of); however, since I do see what is depicted in the picture in both instances (direct and indirect observation of the picture), then although I am not seeing the cat directly, there does seem to be an indirect observation of the cat; moreover, I'm indirectly seeing the cat whether I directly see the picture or indirectly see the picture.

[/end of starting to argue and failing miserably]

It's late

What if you and the cat were in a completely dark room... You cannot observe the cat with your eyes (but you can hear it purring as you feel it's fur). You then take a picture of the inside of the room with a night vision camera. you then leave the room and view the night vision image of the room, including the cat (and yourself).

What kind of observations have happened in this case, and what is the significance of those differences?

 

[fromderinside]

or....or ..... OR we could go back to

Operationalism is based on the intuition that we do not know the meaning of a concept unless we have a method of measurement for it. It is commonly considered a theory of meaning which states that “we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations” (Bridgman 1927, 5).

and ... and ...AND come forward to

In a little-known section of The Logic of Modern Physics, he discussed what he called “mental constructs” in science, particularly those created in order to “enable us to deal with physical situations which we cannot directly experience through our senses, but with which we have contact indirectly and by inference” (1927, 53–60). Not all constructs are the same:

The essential point is that our constructs fall into two classes: those to which no physical operations correspond other than those which enter the definition of the construct, and those which admit of other operations, or which could be defined in several alternative ways in terms of physically distinct operations. This difference in the character of constructs may be expected to correspond to essential physical differences, and these physical differences are much too likely to be overlooked in the thinking of physicists. (Bridgman 1927, 59–60)​

concluding with:

“The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred” (1955, 535).

from Operationalism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/#OpeUniAnaSciPra

After all indirect and direct observation are operational constructs.

 

[ronburgundy]

or....or ..... OR we could go back to



and ... and ...AND come forward to

In a little-known section of The Logic of Modern Physics, he discussed what he called “mental constructs” in science, particularly those created in order to “enable us to deal with physical situations which we cannot directly experience through our senses, but with which we have contact indirectly and by inference” (1927, 53–60). Not all constructs are the same:

The essential point is that our constructs fall into two classes: those to which no physical operations correspond other than those which enter the definition of the construct, and those which admit of other operations, or which could be defined in several alternative ways in terms of physically distinct operations. This difference in the character of constructs may be expected to correspond to essential physical differences, and these physical differences are much too likely to be overlooked in the thinking of physicists. (Bridgman 1927, 59–60)​

concluding with:

“The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred” (1955, 535).

from Operationalism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/#OpeUniAnaSciPra

After all indirect and direct observation are operational constructs.

Good point. Those two classes of operational definitions map onto notions of direct vs. indirect evidence. The second class of operational definition that can be defined in alternative ways count as only "indirect" evidence of the theoretical construct. For example, an answer on a survey question reflecting the content of a person's thoughts or emotional states, bending light in space reflecting the presence of a black hole. The the entity or event of real theoretical interest is not observed but inferred from its presumed causation of the thing observed. Since nearly all theoretical entities would be inferred to cause multiple observable events, there are always multiple methods of operationalizing such entities, and the greater the number of imperfect 1:1 causal steps between the observation and the entity, the greater the room for measurement error. Using multiple different operational definitions and showing that they all imply the same conclusion about the theoretical construct helps to reduce the likelihood that the results merely result from that measurement error.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, I didn't know that attributing the Nobel prize was a scientific process.

So, I still don't see where's the difference.
EB

Direct measurements result in a direct observation.
Indirect measurements result in an indirect observation.

Sure. So what's the big difference from a scientific point of view?

Looking at how much someone spends on their lifestyle and girlfriend results in an indirect observation of their wealth.

Very wrong example I'm afraid. What people spend "on their lifestyle and girlfriend" is often enough more indicative of their wealth than their tax return!

Looking at someone's financial statement results in a direct observation of their wealth.

I don't think you can observe wealth directly except perhaps in some extreme cases we can ignore here.

Wealth is an abstract concept. Financial statements are mere figures and these are relative to an abstract concept. Just looking at the number of grammes representing the mass of the Moon is not the same thing as observing directly the mass of the Moon. We can only directly observe things that happen to be like what selection allowed us to observe through our perception organs. So we're sort of lucky we can observe the stars. That's also why there's not much difference between direct and indirect. It's an accident of evolution.

It's also funny because people come naturaly over time to take the measure as the thing measured itself. This is what your statement here suggests you did. You've come to think wealth is just your financial statement. Sorry, love, I'm sorry to disappoint you, it's not.

Such is the power of our imagination!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Whether you are "seeing her hair is red" or "seeing your brains representation of the light reflected by her hair" is largely semantics and something mostly to let philosophers and stoners waste their time fighting over.

Ah, philosophers!

Science refers to the mental representation formed as the thing observed. There are things that can go awry in the process of that observation, such that the variance in what your see does not perfectly correspond to variance in the objective properties of what you are looking at. That is why science uses large samples, repeated observations, and controlled conditions under which to make those observations.

Seems you could benefit somewhat from thinking a bit more like philosophers. You are effectively contradicting yourself here. Nothing unusual, though, most people like to do it now and then. Maybe there's a name for it, like cognitive dissonance or whatever. We are rational people but we are also emotional beings and emotion can squeeze logic and clarity of mind into a dark corner. You remind me of Krauss we've just discussed a bit elsewhere. He went on and on about religious people and philosophers, how bad they were etc. and then went on to argue strenuously that the universe had come out of nothing. Pity.
EB