Direct versus indirect

[fast]

This is a lot to soak in.

 

[fast]

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?

If I hear the cat but do not see the cat, then I have not visually observed the cat, but I have observed the cat in the broader scientific sense. My hearing the cat would be a direct observation of the cat.

If I take a picture then later look at the picture, then although what I've taken a picture of can purr and be fed, what I later look at cannot purr or be fed. Since I will later be looking at a picture and not what the picture is a picture of, I'm hard pressed to think I'm directly observing the cat after leaving and looking at a picture.

The picture, however, may stand good as direct evidence of the cat, but to say I am directly observing the cat while merely examining direct evidence of the cat seems to be (to me) a mistake.

 

[fast]

lack holes are not observed, even indirectly, they are inferred using what is observed as indirect evidence for their existence.

I'm still grappling with this. It's not that I can't appreciate the distinction. I just have this idea running around that the scope of "indirect observation" is so broad that it includes inference. Something like that.

 

[skepticalbip]

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?

If I hear the cat but do not see the cat, then I have not visually observed the cat, but I have observed the cat in the broader scientific sense. My hearing the cat would be a direct observation of the cat.

If I take a picture then later look at the picture, then although what I've taken a picture of can purr and be fed, what I later look at cannot purr or be fed. Since I will later be looking at a picture and not what the picture is a picture of, I'm hard pressed to think I'm directly observing the cat after leaving and looking at a picture.

The picture, however, may stand good as direct evidence of the cat, but to say I am directly observing the cat while merely examining direct evidence of the cat seems to be (to me) a mistake.

An observation is the information acquired by a measurement or test. A measurement of the cat's mass would only provide a direct observation of its mass. From that observation, we wouldn't be able to determine other of the cat's properties. Other tests would be needed to observe other properties.

A photograph (consider it a test) gives some information about the cat - that information provides a direct observation of whatever properties of the cat are apparent even if the photograph is years old and is a copy of a copy. It is the information the photograph gives us about the cat that is the direct observation about some aspect of the cat.

The photograph obviously doesn't tell us everything about the cat but then no single measurement can tell us everything about anything we are studying. A photograph also does not allow us to observe any properties of the cat that aren't contained in the photograph since it was only one test that gives limited information.

 

[fast]

If I hear the cat but do not see the cat, then I have not visually observed the cat, but I have observed the cat in the broader scientific sense. My hearing the cat would be a direct observation of the cat.

If I take a picture then later look at the picture, then although what I've taken a picture of can purr and be fed, what I later look at cannot purr or be fed. Since I will later be looking at a picture and not what the picture is a picture of, I'm hard pressed to think I'm directly observing the cat after leaving and looking at a picture.

The picture, however, may stand good as direct evidence of the cat, but to say I am directly observing the cat while merely examining direct evidence of the cat seems to be (to me) a mistake.

An observation is the information acquired by a measurement or test. A measurement of the cat's mass would only provide a direct observation of its mass. From that observation, we wouldn't be able to determine other of the cat's properties. Other tests would be needed to observe other properties.

A photograph (consider it a test) gives some information about the cat - that information provides a direct observation of whatever properties of the cat are apparent even if the photograph is years old and is a copy of a copy. It is the information the photograph gives us about the cat that is the direct observation about some aspect of the cat.

The photograph obviously doesn't tell us everything about the cat but then no single measurement can tell us everything about anything we are studying. A photograph also does not allow us to observe any properties of the cat that aren't contained in the photograph since it was only one test that gives limited information.

So, if I weigh myself on a scale and notate my weight on my calendar, the numerical data on my calendar is my observation of my weight.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be a record of your observation of your weight just as the picture of the cat is a record. But to apply this to your cat picture question, assume you are not the one who did the weighing and recording or you forget. You wonder what you weight on that day was so look at the notation on the calendar. Checking the recorded information will provide you with an observation of that information. Checking the recorded information of the cat (the picture) provides an observation of whatever properties of the cat at that time were that the picture shows.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number. Anyone trying to make more of it than that is just engaging in fuzzy belly button gazing or trying to apply value judgements.

 

[fast]

It would be a record of your observation of your weight just as the picture of the cat is a record. But to apply this to your cat picture question, assume you are not the one who did the weighing and recording or you forget. You wonder what you weight on that day was so look at the notation on the calendar. Checking the recorded information will provide you with an observation of that information. Checking the recorded information of the cat (the picture) provides an observation of whatever properties of the cat at that time were that the picture shows.

I can't help but think there is an equivocation going on, not on your part, but on my part. My belief that the scientific usage was a broader notion than the common usage may be misfounded--as they are different animals altogether. My observation of my weight is not even an observation of my weight; in other words, my observation (common usage) is not even an observation (scientific usage) of my weight. This may (might?) go to show that only a visual observation is an actual observation in common usage--making auditory senses not an observation at all, in the common usage. Not even a visual observation is a scientific observation since detecting something with either our senses or instrumentation isn't what stands good as an observation in the scientific community--if I'm interpreting you correctly.

If the data gathered from my measurable tests is the actual scientific observation, then that is something different than the observation of what is measured. How I observe is different than the data gathered from the observation, so although scientists do observe (in the common sense of the word), it's not the actual methods used to observe that is being referred to as the scientific observation.

If hearing the cat in the dark stands good as an observation, or even if it doesn't, in nether case is it the case that I have scientifically observed the cat. If I take a picture in the dark of the cat and later look at the picture and able to ascertain the cats size, then the notation made possible by analyzing the picture is the numerical data point that is the actual scientific observation.

In a strange kind of way, the scientific observation always comes after the common use observation.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....

In a strange kind of way, the scientific observation always comes after the common use observation.

You may just be overthinking the question.

Say you observe (in the normal sense of the word) the moon rise, that is also a scientific observation. But, if that is the only information, then it is of little scientific significance (unless no one knew that Earth had a moon). Add the exact time and your GPS coordinates (additional observations) and there is more information. If all these collected observations disagreed with the ephemerus then it would be shocking but if they did agree with the ephemerus then it would just be confirmation that we understand celestial mechanics.

 

[fast]

.... snip ....

In a strange kind of way, the scientific observation always comes after the common use observation.

You may just be overthinking the question.

Say you observe (in the normal sense of the word) the moon rise, that is also a scientific observation. But, if that is the only information, then it is of little scientific significance (unless no one knew that Earth had a moon). Add the exact time and your GPS coordinates (additional observations) and there is more information. If all these collected observations disagreed with the ephemerus then it would be shocking but if they did agree with the ephemerus then it would just be confirmation that we understand celestial mechanics.

I think what might be going on is I'm going back and forth between a not-so-clear subtle distinction I'm making that distracts me.

On the one hand, if I say that I have observed something, it's as if I'm talking about an act--something I've done so-to-speak. The observation, thus, is the looking, or is the measuring. Did I observe something? Yes, I did. Was I observing? I did something: I observed, and thus, there was an observation--something done by me.

On the other hand, what was the observation? That brings to mind, not my observation (my observing) but rather my observation (what I observed). This is what you are referring to and most likely how I should be using the term.

I know that might sound kind of silly, but when an observation is couched in terms of being direct or indirect, it seems to have more to do with what was on the first hand, as it speaks more to the how than to the what.

But, letting that distraction go, it does seem instead that a direct scientific observation is what is observed (regardless of how indirect an observation it might seem in laymen speak) whereas an indirect scientific observation is an inference made through argumentation that is based on one or more direct scientific observations of something else.

 

[ronburgundy]

lack holes are not observed, even indirectly, they are inferred using what is observed as indirect evidence for their existence.

I'm still grappling with this. It's not that I can't appreciate the distinction. I just have this idea running around that the scope of "indirect observation" is so broad that it includes inference. Something like that.

The problem is that to include inferences, the scope of "observation" has to be so broad that the concept becomes meaningless. It winds up including every single possible idea that anyone has ever had. All ideas are connected via inference to information that was "observed". It fails to exclude anything, thus it doesn't mean much of anything. The term "observation" in science gets its core meaning from being distinct from inference. Indirect observation isn't really a thing. It means you did not actually observe it and are inferring it. Did you observe the suspect steal the jewels or are you inferring that he stole them because you observed him near the jewels then noticed the jewels were gone a few minutes later? The former, observation, is direct evidence of his guilt, while the latter, inference, entails observations that serve as indirect evidence of his guilt. The concept of "evidence" can handle "indirect" forms without losing the core feature of the concept, but the concept of "observation" cannot.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm still grappling with this. It's not that I can't appreciate the distinction. I just have this idea running around that the scope of "indirect observation" is so broad that it includes inference. Something like that.

The problem is that to include inferences, the scope of "observation" has to be so broad that the concept becomes meaningless. It winds up including every single possible idea that anyone has ever had. All ideas are connected via inference to information that was "observed". It fails to exclude anything, thus it doesn't mean much of anything. The term "observation" in science gets its core meaning from being distinct from inference. Indirect observation isn't really a thing. It means you did not actually observe it and are inferring it. Did you observe the suspect steal the jewels or are you inferring that he stole them because you observed him near the jewels then noticed the jewels were gone a few minutes later? The former, observation, is direct evidence of his guilt, while the latter, inference, entails observations that serve as indirect evidence of his guilt. The concept of "evidence" can handle "indirect" forms without losing the core feature of the concept, but the concept of "observation" cannot.

First we need to remember this is a natural science thread. We need to remember there is/are processes developed over history for reasoning, defining problem, resolving problem, and adding to knowledge that depend on indirect and direct observation. So saying everything is included isn't very productive. Even though within a scientist's process everything may be part indirect observation within the frame of existing knowledge and apparent observed variant with that knowledge. Since existing sources  Scientific method do it better I defer to them.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:^[68]

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Now with that frame or another more satisfying to you we can move on. Within the frame of the Method we parse indirect observation into more and more concrete statements from conjecture of possible solution to apparent anomaly in scientific knowledge to operationally defined and linked observations to new theory and advance of scientific knowledge. It is not so unwieldy this way. this brings us back to Bridgman's problems with Operationalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/) which you summarized so aptly in an earlier post.

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.

Bridgman wound up wrapping himself around the axle in operation while you now seem to be doing the same with indirect observation. Hopefully reconnecting this thread to The Method will help. Even though I don't subscribe to hierarchy as science (ladder of sciences), they are all physics, its convenient to break our indirect observation and indirect evidence down within some heuristic within which we can more readily discuss indirect at various levels of use. Certainly it is much easier to discuss biology in terms of biochemistry than it is to discuss it in terms of quantum mechanics. We know that , fundamentally, that is exactly what we are addressing - why would a chemical evolve in nervous tissue unless it were taking advantage of some quantum mechanical advantage in passing ions across a membrane - when we monitor time courses of current and voltage or oxygen uptake studying behaviors in neural/metabolic intercourse.

No need to go back three thousand years in reasoning to get head scratching responses.

Just sayin'

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem is that to include inferences, the scope of "observation" has to be so broad that the concept becomes meaningless. It winds up including every single possible idea that anyone has ever had. All ideas are connected via inference to information that was "observed". It fails to exclude anything, thus it doesn't mean much of anything. The term "observation" in science gets its core meaning from being distinct from inference. Indirect observation isn't really a thing. It means you did not actually observe it and are inferring it. Did you observe the suspect steal the jewels or are you inferring that he stole them because you observed him near the jewels then noticed the jewels were gone a few minutes later? The former, observation, is direct evidence of his guilt, while the latter, inference, entails observations that serve as indirect evidence of his guilt. The concept of "evidence" can handle "indirect" forms without losing the core feature of the concept, but the concept of "observation" cannot.

First we need to remember this is a natural science thread. We need to remember there is/are processes developed over history for reasoning, defining problem, resolving problem, and adding to knowledge that depend on indirect and direct observation. So saying everything is included isn't very productive. Even though within a scientist's process everything may be part indirect observation within the frame of existing knowledge and apparent observed variant with that knowledge. Since existing sources  Scientific method do it better I defer to them.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:^[68]

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Now with that frame or another more satisfying to you we can move on. Within the frame of the Method we parse indirect observation into more and more concrete statements from conjecture of possible solution to apparent anomaly in scientific knowledge to operationally defined and linked observations to new theory and advance of scientific knowledge. It is not so unwieldy this way. this brings us back to Bridgman's problems with Operationalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/) which you summarized so aptly in an earlier post.

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.

Bridgman wound up wrapping himself around the axle in operation while you now seem to be doing the same with indirect observation. Hopefully reconnecting this thread to The Method will help. Even though I don't subscribe to hierarchy as science (ladder of sciences), they are all physics, its convenient to break our indirect observation and indirect evidence down within some heuristic within which we can more readily discuss indirect at various levels of use. Certainly it is much easier to discuss biology in terms of biochemistry than it is to discuss it in terms of quantum mechanics. We know that , fundamentally, that is exactly what we are addressing - why would a chemical evolve in nervous tissue unless it were taking advantage of some quantum mechanical advantage in passing ions across a membrane - when we monitor time courses of current and voltage or oxygen uptake studying behaviors in neural/metabolic intercourse.

No need to go back three thousand years in reasoning to get head scratching responses.

Just sayin'

Notice how the sequence of method only says "observe" and makes no mention of directly or indirectly. That is because "direct" is implied by observe and there is no meaningful notion of "indirect observation" within science. Step number 6, is where inferences come into play. Interpretations and drawing conclusions entail inferencing, and thus are indirectly supported by what was observed. But the observations are not actually indirect, but rather serve as indirect evidence of the conclusions.
If instead you stop at step 5 and merely describe the observed data in a summative way rather the interpret it or draw inferences that go beyond what was observed, then the observations are direct evidence of those descriptions.
For example, imagine I measure the height of 100 mean and 100 women. I compute averages and report that the men in the sample were an average of 6 inches taller than the women in the sample. I have direct evidence of that. However, if I go beyond a summative description of the data and say "Men are likely to wear longer pants than women", then my evidence for the conclusion is indirect. Even if I only say "Men in general tend to be 6 inches taller than women", my evidence is indirect, because I have gone beyond the data to infer what is true of the population in general and not just in the sample I observed. That is why they call the statistical analyses used to test the "significance" of the difference allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis, "inferential statistics" in contrast with "descriptive statistics".
The observations are the same in each case, thus the direct/indirect distinction cannot be a property of the observations themselves. Rather it refers to the inferential relationship between what is observed and what is concluded, and thus to the nature and force of evidence the observations provide for those conclusions.

 

[fromderinside]

Twisted.

Explain first how one observing something is direct evidence in anything other than a court of law.

Science has matured to the point where we have evidence nothing man 'observes' is observed directly. So when you perform operations that result in measurement of height you are performing activities that provide evidence of something called height. Is that direct evidence of anything beyond confirming the operations defining height in the two groups, men and women, shows a difference in height as defined by some set of operations the community has agreed specify height. Is this really direct evidence? It may be if one presumes before hand that there is no difference between heights of men and women but the result of taking a sample, the difference, is significant (another set of operations) beyond some agreed to probability. This permits according to a set of rules specified in operations one to conclude the presumption of no difference in height is incorrect and that there is an actual difference in height, within some range of ages, weights,nationalities, etc., all rigorously operationalized between the populations which one then may use in speculations about theory claiming height difference among men and women within the rule set from which one can justify with evidence from other sources as basis for making further predictions.

Really indirect and direct are not meaningful or useful since everything is dependent on operations, evidence, replication, falsification, and theory against existing knowledge gathered similarly to what we just described.

seems to me the only reason one would talk about indirect and direct observation is via theory which are groupings of agreed to operations on specific topics previously validated by existing knowledge, recent experiment, and planned new experiments.

The philosophical point that there is a difference between indirect and direct observation is only valid to the extent that operations exist which are validated by experiment and existing data. Without operations and theory there is no discussion since it has been demonstrated previously humans can only observe indirectly. Since I saw no theory nor evidence germane to it supported by knowledge the only argument on the table is the one I just presented.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

But look at what you said!

If you look at someone's financial statement all you see is a number, not his wealth. So, it's not a direct observation of his wealth. Yet, this is what you said:

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

EB

 

[fast]

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

But look at what you said!

If you look at someone's financial statement all you see is a number, not his wealth. So, it's not a direct observation of his wealth. Yet, this is what you said:

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

EB

If we're going to get philisophical about it, what we see is the numeral, not the number. Just sayin'

 

[skepticalbip]

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

But look at what you said!

If you look at someone's financial statement all you see is a number, not his wealth. So, it's not a direct observation of his wealth. Yet, this is what you said:

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

EB

This is a good example of why pure philosophy hasn't contributed anything to advance humanity even though they have been at it for over three thousand years (granting that Aristotle provided a useful understanding of logic). They continually argue over what the question means rather trying to answer the question. Your veer into "what is wealth" is such a detour away from trying to make sense of the measurement and a step into metaphysics (useful if someone enjoys mental masturbation but not if someone is interested in understanding reality). Meanwhile science advances by consistently making very small steps, one at a time, added to the knowledge gained by previous steps. The number attained in my suggested measurement is a useful measurement of wealth for any particular individual - numbers can be quantified and are, they can be compared to a distribution curve of the net worth numbers from a large segment of society to arrive at an understanding of where an individual's wealth falls with respect to others. Someone's wealth in the real world is where they stand in this comparison - unsatisfactory for philosophers because they want to argue over the "meaning" of wealth itself.

I'll repeat that for science, "A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number. Anyone trying to make more of it than that is just engaging in fuzzy belly button gazing or trying to apply value judgements."

 

[Speakpigeon]

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

But look at what you said!

If you look at someone's financial statement all you see is a number, not his wealth. So, it's not a direct observation of his wealth. Yet, this is what you said:

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

EB

This is a good example of why pure philosophy hasn't contributed anything to advance humanity even though they have been at it for over three thousand years (granting that Aristotle provided a useful understanding of logic). They continually argue over what the question means rather trying to answer the question. Your veer into "what is wealth" is such a detour away from trying to make sense of the measurement and a step into metaphysics (useful if someone enjoys mental masturbation but not if someone is interested in understanding reality).

I wasn't trying to go into metaphysics. It seems you just failed to understand my point, which was that what you said suggested you took a number, the measure of wealth, to be wealth itself. In other words, it is you who seemed to have metaphysical views. Of course, what I said on this was perfectly clear for anybody who would want to understand so I have to presume you don't. Go on.

Meanwhile science advances by consistently making very small steps, one at a time, added to the knowledge gained by previous steps. The number attained in my suggested measurement is a useful measurement of wealth for any particular individual - numbers can be quantified and are, they can be compared to a distribution curve of the net worth numbers from a large segment of society to arrive at an understanding of where an individual's wealth falls with respect to others.

Good but that's not relevant to what I said.

Someone's wealth in the real world is where they stand in this comparison - unsatisfactory for philosophers because they want to argue over the "meaning" of wealth itself.

Blah-blah-blah.

I'll repeat that for science, "A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

And that's not what you said there suggested:

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

Anyone trying to make more of it than that is just engaging in fuzzy belly button gazing or trying to apply value judgements."

Where did I come anywhere near doing that?

But do go on, you're unstoppable.
EB

 

[fast]

If the qualitative and quantitative data collected from (our human senses and instrumentation) is direct observation, and if an inference is a necessary condition for an indirect observation of something else entirely, it seems to me that an argument is a necessary condition for an indirect observation since there is no argument without an inference.

If my seeing a flag is a direct observation, and if my seeing it sway is a direct observation, and if I hypothesize that the cause of the sway is the existence of wind, and if no other direct observations are made, then my observation that there is wind is an indirect observation. I'm not directly observing wind but rather the effects it has on what I am directly observing.

Since the wind in this instance is an indirect observation, and since an indirect observation requires an inference, what would be a good argument that it's wind I'm indirectly observing? Seems like I should have some more direct observations to make the inference. Also, we'd have to be careful not to do any direct measures of the wind, for if we made a direct observation of wind, it would no longer be an indirect observation requiring an argument that required an inference.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Only abstract to philosophy that insists on making something metaphysical of a measurement of net financial worth. For scientific study, it is only a number.

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

I would disagree. A measure of net financial worth (wealth) is simply a number.

But look at what you said!

If you look at someone's financial statement all you see is a number, not his wealth. So, it's not a direct observation of his wealth. Yet, this is what you said:

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

EB

If we're going to get philisophical about it, what we see is the numeral, not the number. Just sayin'

You're being childish:

Numeral: symbol or mark used to represent a number.
Number: symbol used to represent a number.

EB