Direct versus indirect

[fast]

I'll give you time to edit that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Non-sequitur, and, I'm sure people make inferences outside arguments.

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.

Yes.

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.

Most people will infer wind from flag swaying without bothering to make an argument and they would be right presumably. You're brain does the trick is the answer. No need to articulate anything in such cases. and you call "wind" whatever causes the swaying. Good enough for sciency types.

I guess arguments are only really necessary when precisely the inference is not so natural. Why argue about there being wind when we all see the flag sway? It's when you want to convince others of an inference to the reality of anything a bit contentious, say God, or Quarks, that you may want to reach for arguments.

That's also why most people don't understand why philosophers want to insist on making arguments in such obvious cases. The answers usually is "the wind is obvious" or some such.

But good luck anyway.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll give you time to edit that.

You're being childish again:

Numeral: symbol or mark used to represent a number.
Number: symbol used to represent a number as member of any of the following sets of mathematical objects: integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers.

EB

 

[fast]

Non-sequitur, and, I'm sure people make inferences outside arguments.

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.

Yes.

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.

Most people will infer wind from flag swaying without bothering to make an argument and they would be right presumably. You're brain does the trick is the answer. No need to articulate anything in such cases. and you call "wind" whatever causes the swaying. Good enough for sciency types.

I guess arguments are only really necessary when precisely the inference is not so natural. Why argue about there being wind when we all see the flag sway? It's when you want to convince others of an inference to the reality of anything a bit contentious, say God, or Quarks, that you may want to reach for arguments.

That's also why most people don't understand why philosophers want to insist on making arguments in such obvious cases. The answers usually is "the wind is obvious" or some such.

But good luck anyway.
EB

I guess this is what I get for using what has been directly observed as an example for an indirect observation, but I think my example goes to show that what can stand good as an indirect observation by an individual observer can be a direct observation by members of the scientific community.

If we go back to a time when gravity was not an accepted reasoning for why objects fall, the direct observation of (oh say) an apple falling would be one part of the puzzle that leads us to refer to gravity as an indirect observation. It's not until we later observed gravity directly did we rightly begin to call gravity a direct observation.

I was trying to bridge the gap between the observations, and I thought an argument was necessary since an inference is necessary. I might be wrong on that note, but I thought a rigorous sense of "infer" was being used, not the laymen since that confuses, "suggest" with "infer."

A person that says he doesn't like black people does not imply the person is a racist, even if it highly suggests it because there is no guarentee that the person is a racist by saying it, as it may also be the case the person doesn't like anyone regardless of race. I was using "infer" much the same way I was just using, "imply,"--as used by a logician, and not as a layman might say they are inferring.

 

[fast]

You're being childish again:

Numeral: symbol or mark used to represent a number.
Number: symbol used to represent a number as member of any of the following sets of mathematical objects: integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers.

EB

A source that uses the definiendum in the definien is a source that loses credibility with me.

Wanna try again?

 

[Juma]

The use of "direct" and "indirect" used in every day scientific work dendends on what the scientists selects to ignore and take for granted.

Thus when one scientist sees the measurement of a current as a direct measurement using a multimeter, another one sees the measurement as indirect since what is actually displayed is something that happens inside the multimeter.

Thus what is "direct" and what is "indirect" depends on what context you are interested in. It depends on the framing.

 

[fast]

The use of "direct" and "indirect" used in every day scientific work dendends on what the scientists selects to ignore and take for granted.

Thus when one scientist sees the measurement of a current as a direct measurement using a multimeter, another one sees the measurement as indirect since what is actually displayed is something that happens inside the multimeter.

Thus what is "direct" and what is "indirect" depends on what context you are interested in. It depends on the framing.

From what I can tell, not only do we recognize a difference with observations such that some are direct while others are indirect, we also recognize a difference with measurements such that some are direct while others are indirect. Thus, we have direct observations, indirect observations, direct measurements, and indirect measurements.

Here is an example of a direct observation using indirect measurements: using an actual tape measure to record the distances from different points on different mountain peaks (and those are direct measurements) THEN using the data in mathematical formulas to calculate distances between points not directly measured (and those are indirect measurements).

So, the dilienation between direct and indirect is not as such as it is between observations and measurements. A calculated distance is still a direct scientific observation, but a calculated distance is indirect when it comes to being a measurement. Therefore, just because a measurement is an indirect measurement, that doesn't make the observation an indirect observation.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I think you have the idea. But, as I mentioned earlier, science rarely makes a distinction between direct or indirect measurements unless they want to be sure the reader understands how the measurement was made.

Maybe another example of direct vs. indirect measurements/observations would be helpful:

Assume someone wants to know the potential between plates in a cloud chamber. They can measure the voltage difference with a volt meter as a direct measurement/observation.

An indirect observation of the potential difference could be that they observe a charged particle's path is arced as it passes through the cloud chamber. If they don't know the mass and charge of the particle then this only tells them that there is some unspecified potential difference between the plates as an indirect observation. If they know the mass and charge of the particle and can accurately measure the radius of the arc then they can calculate the potential difference between the plates as an indirect measurement/observation. This is backwards from how such studies are done because setting the potential between the plates is one of the first steps taken when working with a cloud chamber and finding the mass, charge is the objective but maybe the example can be useful for understanding what an indirect measurement/observation is.

 

[Juma]

The use of "direct" and "indirect" used in every day scientific work dendends on what the scientists selects to ignore and take for granted.

Thus when one scientist sees the measurement of a current as a direct measurement using a multimeter, another one sees the measurement as indirect since what is actually displayed is something that happens inside the multimeter.

Thus what is "direct" and what is "indirect" depends on what context you are interested in. It depends on the framing.

From what I can tell, not only do we recognize a difference with observations such that some are direct while others are indirect, we also recognize a difference with measurements such that some are direct while others are indirect. Thus, we have direct observations, indirect observations, direct measurements, and indirect measurements.

Here is an example of a direct observation using indirect measurements: using an actual tape measure to record the distances from different points on different mountain peaks (and those are direct measurements) THEN using the data in mathematical formulas to calculate distances between points not directly measured (and those are indirect measurements).

So, the dilienation between direct and indirect is not as such as it is between observations and measurements. A calculated distance is still a direct scientific observation, but a calculated distance is indirect when it comes to being a measurement. Therefore, just because a measurement is an indirect measurement, that doesn't make the observation an indirect observation.

How is measuring with a measuring tape "direct"? I would say it is even more direct if we did use unmarkt strings and compared the lengths of the strings. But then we compared the lenghts of the strings, not the distance of the mountainstops.

 

[fast]

From what I can tell, not only do we recognize a difference with observations such that some are direct while others are indirect, we also recognize a difference with measurements such that some are direct while others are indirect. Thus, we have direct observations, indirect observations, direct measurements, and indirect measurements.

Here is an example of a direct observation using indirect measurements: using an actual tape measure to record the distances from different points on different mountain peaks (and those are direct measurements) THEN using the data in mathematical formulas to calculate distances between points not directly measured (and those are indirect measurements).

So, the dilienation between direct and indirect is not as such as it is between observations and measurements. A calculated distance is still a direct scientific observation, but a calculated distance is indirect when it comes to being a measurement. Therefore, just because a measurement is an indirect measurement, that doesn't make the observation an indirect observation.

How is measuring with a measuring tape "direct"? I would say it is even more direct if we did use unmarkt strings and compared the lengths of the strings. But then we compared the lenghts of the strings, not the distance of the mountainstops.

It's direct because the instrument gives us the measurement data. It's not a function of calculation. For instance, if I measure from point A to point B, it's a direct measurement. If I measure from point B to point C, it's a direct measurement. If I use the data from those direct measurements and insert it into a formula to calculate the distance from point A to point C, then the data determined from the math would be an indirect measurement.

 

[Juma]

How is measuring with a measuring tape "direct"? I would say it is even more direct if we did use unmarkt strings and compared the lengths of the strings. But then we compared the lenghts of the strings, not the distance of the mountainstops.

It's direct because the instrument gives us the measurement data.
It's not a function of calculation. For instance, if I measure from point A to point B, it's a direct measurement. If I measure from point B to point C, it's a direct measurement. If I use the data from those direct measurements and insert it into a formula to calculate the distance from point A to point C, then the data determined from the math would be an indirect measurement.

if your wanted result is only "what was the marking on the tape nearest to the position" then i could say you had a point. That is rather direct. But if your wanted result was the distance from another point then it is indirect.

A direct measurement doesnt need calibration.

I can measure which of two shoelaces are the longest by the most direct measurement i know: lay them in straight lines beside each other. Yet we use logic to see which of them is longer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're being childish again:

EB

A source that uses the definiendum in the definien is a source that loses credibility with me.

Wanna try again?

No because you're no such a child that you couldn't understand what was meant.
EB

 

[Malintent]

It's direct because the instrument gives us the measurement data.
It's not a function of calculation. For instance, if I measure from point A to point B, it's a direct measurement. If I measure from point B to point C, it's a direct measurement. If I use the data from those direct measurements and insert it into a formula to calculate the distance from point A to point C, then the data determined from the math would be an indirect measurement.

if your wanted result is only "what was the marking on the tape nearest to the position" then i could say you had a point. That is rather direct. But if your wanted result was the distance from another point then it is indirect.

A direct measurement doesnt need calibration.

I can measure which of two shoelaces are the longest by the most direct measurement i know: lay them in straight lines beside each other. Yet we use logic to see which of them is longer.

odd response.. I am guessing maybe a language difference... in the US a "tape measure" is a flexible ruler. It is not just a piece of tape with markings on it. does that help?

 

[skepticalbip]

if your wanted result is only "what was the marking on the tape nearest to the position" then i could say you had a point. That is rather direct. But if your wanted result was the distance from another point then it is indirect.

A direct measurement doesnt need calibration.

I can measure which of two shoelaces are the longest by the most direct measurement i know: lay them in straight lines beside each other. Yet we use logic to see which of them is longer.

odd response.. I am guessing maybe a language difference... in the US a "tape measure" is a flexible ruler. It is not just a piece of tape with markings on it. does that help?

AHA! Thanks, I didn't fully understand Juma's post either but it didn't occur to me that it was possibly a language problem.

Maybe a picture of what people in the US call a tape measure would help Juma understand what fast meant:

 

[fast]

It's direct because the instrument gives us the measurement data.
It's not a function of calculation. For instance, if I measure from point A to point B, it's a direct measurement. If I measure from point B to point C, it's a direct measurement. If I use the data from those direct measurements and insert it into a formula to calculate the distance from point A to point C, then the data determined from the math would be an indirect measurement.

if your wanted result is only "what was the marking on the tape nearest to the position" then i could say you had a point. That is rather direct. But if your wanted result was the distance from another point then it is indirect.

A direct measurement doesnt need calibration.

I can measure which of two shoelaces are the longest by the most direct measurement i know: lay them in straight lines beside each other. Yet we use logic to see which of them is longer.

Hmmm. Not every instance of a direct observation consists of numerical data. A visual observation that one shoe lace is longer than another would stand good as a scientific observation, as the information gleaned is not only from the human sense of sight but non-opinionated as well.

 

[fast]

A source that uses the definiendum in the definien is a source that loses credibility with me.

Wanna try again?

No because you're no such a child that you couldn't understand what was meant.
EB

What I understand is that the author of that explanation is confused. The numeral three has the same lexical meaning and referent as does the word three, and the referent of both the word three and numeral three is the number three. The number three isn't a symbol, and as such, it neither denotes meaning nor refers to anything.

 

[Juma]

if your wanted result is only "what was the marking on the tape nearest to the position" then i could say you had a point. That is rather direct. But if your wanted result was the distance from another point then it is indirect.

A direct measurement doesnt need calibration.

I can measure which of two shoelaces are the longest by the most direct measurement i know: lay them in straight lines beside each other. Yet we use logic to see which of them is longer.

Hmmm. Not every instance of a direct observation consists of numerical data. A visual observation that one shoe lace is longer than another would stand good as a scientific observation, as the information gleaned is not only from the human sense of sight but non-opinionated as well.

But the the observation isnt simply visual. We dont learn facts simply by seeing. We always use logic to analyze what we see. (Even if we for the moment ignores the massive processing we do to convert incoming light into recognized objects).

 

[fast]

Hmmm. Not every instance of a direct observation consists of numerical data. A visual observation that one shoe lace is longer than another would stand good as a scientific observation, as the information gleaned is not only from the human sense of sight but non-opinionated as well.

But the the observation isnt simply visual. We dont learn facts simply by seeing. We always use logic to analyze what we see. (Even if we for the moment ignores the massive processing we do to convert incoming light into recognized objects).

If you're trying to argue that there is no true observation that is in fact worthy of being called a direct observation because of underlying processes that have steps that might call into question just how direct an observation might be, then I'd say that there is an equivocation of sorts going on with the word, "direct."

Whether something is direct or indirect has more to do with what's in question than (strangely enough) how something might be direct or indirect in another sense of the word. For instance, whether an observation is direct or indirect is vastly different than whether a measurement is direct or indirect. The pivotal point where one is direct or indirect has a completely different basis than the other.

In the macroscopic world, if a robber ran in front of me, one might say I had a direct view of him, but if what I saw was a cell phone camera picture of an image on a monitor taken by yet another camera that captured his face reflecting off a mirror, one might say my view was not a direct view but rather an indirect view. In the microscopic world, one may deny I ever had a direct view because there are processes occurring between using my senses to view him and my interpretation of the mental percept of him, but how direct or indirect anything might be in that use of the word is based on some number of intermediary steps and has so very little to do with how the words direct and indirect are used when differentiating between other things like observation for one and measurements for two.

With observation, it's all about detecting X versus inferring Y. With measurement, it's all about using an instrument versus computation. If I detect something with my senses or instrument, it's a direct observation of X--even if others might say I had an indirect view of X, for how direct or indirect my view might be, the basis in which something is a direct scientific observation or not has nothing to do with intermediary separations of view.

Indirect observations is an entirely different animal. We suppose that Y exists based in part on our direct observation of X. What's causing X to behave this way? Something is going on. Although we cannot directly observe or otherwise detect Y, we put two and two together and figure that there's just gotta be this thing we can't see called Y that we give a name and say we observed it but indirectly--which is hardly what one might even call an observation to begin with. The term has the unfortunate misleading quality of making it sound like it's an actual observation. It reminds me of the idea people have when they think the claim that abstract objects exist is the assertion that there is some object and that's it's abstract, all because the reader of the term thinks the preceding word implies that the subsequent is a kind of something, when in fact all that is a language deception--that is very difficult to unravel. It's like the term imaginary object. There is no existing object at hand that has the characteristic of being imaginary--it's a denial that there is an object--not the assertion that there is a particular kind. At any rate, no indirect observation is even an observation at all. It's not like we observed Y but did so indirectly. Bullshit, it was not observed at all. We observed other stuff, yes, but not Y. Yet, we call it an indirect observation none-the-less.

Now, just as there is a chasm of a difference in how we use the words direct or indirect depending on what we're talking about, it seems too that whether or not we call a measurement direct or indirect has a whole nuther set of parameters that is distinct in how we would use them in other areas like viewing something or scientifically observing something.

You said we use logic. Yes, I agree. Does using logic therefore become relevant as to whether or not a measurement is direct or indirect? Well, yes or no depending on which sense of the term you're using, I suppose. If you're talking about what can stand good as a scientific measurement, my contention based on what I've pieced together in this thread is that it's not relevant. If you used your muscle and picked up an instrument and came up with a result, then you probably did a direct measurement, but if you picked up a pen, paper, calculator, and computer model from hell and got to thinkin', figuring, and calculating, then maybe it was an indirect measurement.

So, in conclusion, the opposing words, "direct" and "indirect" are used differently in different contexts, and we have to be careful to keep our on the ball as they are thrown together in a hodgepodge.

 

[Juma]

But the the observation isnt simply visual. We dont learn facts simply by seeing. We always use logic to analyze what we see. (Even if we for the moment ignores the massive processing we do to convert incoming light into recognized objects).

If you're trying to argue that there is no true observation that is in fact worthy of being called a direct observation because of underlying processes that have steps that might call into question just how direct an observation might be, then I'd say that there is an equivocation of sorts going on with the word, "direct."

Whether something is direct or indirect has more to do with what's in question than (strangely enough) how something might be direct or indirect in another sense of the word. For instance, whether an observation is direct or indirect is vastly different than whether a measurement is direct or indirect. The pivotal point where one is direct or indirect has a completely different basis than the other.

In the macroscopic world, if a robber ran in front of me, one might say I had a direct view of him, but if what I saw was a cell phone camera picture of an image on a monitor taken by yet another camera that captured his face reflecting off a mirror, one might say my view was not a direct view but rather an indirect view. In the microscopic world, one may deny I ever had a direct view because there are processes occurring between using my senses to view him and my interpretation of the mental percept of him, but how direct or indirect anything might be in that use of the word is based on some number of intermediary steps and has so very little to do with how the words direct and indirect are used when differentiating between other things like observation for one and measurements for two.

With observation, it's all about detecting X versus inferring Y. With measurement, it's all about using an instrument versus computation. If I detect something with my senses or instrument, it's a direct observation of X--even if others might say I had an indirect view of X, for how direct or indirect my view might be, the basis in which something is a direct scientific observation or not has nothing to do with intermediary separations of view.

Indirect observations is an entirely different animal. We suppose that Y exists based in part on our direct observation of X. What's causing X to behave this way? Something is going on. Although we cannot directly observe or otherwise detect Y, we put two and two together and figure that there's just gotta be this thing we can't see called Y that we give a name and say we observed it but indirectly--which is hardly what one might even call an observation to begin with. The term has the unfortunate misleading quality of making it sound like it's an actual observation. It reminds me of the idea people have when they think the claim that abstract objects exist is the assertion that there is some object and that's it's abstract, all because the reader of the term thinks the preceding word implies that the subsequent is a kind of something, when in fact all that is a language deception--that is very difficult to unravel. It's like the term imaginary object. There is no existing object at hand that has the characteristic of being imaginary--it's a denial that there is an object--not the assertion that there is a particular kind. At any rate, no indirect observation is even an observation at all. It's not like we observed Y but did so indirectly. Bullshit, it was not observed at all. We observed other stuff, yes, but not Y. Yet, we call it an indirect observation none-the-less.

Now, just as there is a chasm of a difference in how we use the words direct or indirect depending on what we're talking about, it seems too that whether or not we call a measurement direct or indirect has a whole nuther set of parameters that is distinct in how we would use them in other areas like viewing something or scientifically observing something.

You said we use logic. Yes, I agree. Does using logic therefore become relevant as to whether or not a measurement is direct or indirect? Well, yes or no depending on which sense of the term you're using, I suppose. If you're talking about what can stand good as a scientific measurement, my contention based on what I've pieced together in this thread is that it's not relevant. If you used your muscle and picked up an instrument and came up with a result, then you probably did a direct measurement, but if you picked up a pen, paper, calculator, and computer model from hell and got to thinkin', figuring, and calculating, then maybe it was an indirect measurement.

So, in conclusion, the opposing words, "direct" and "indirect" are used differently in different contexts, and we have to be careful to keep our on the ball as they are thrown together in a hodgepodge.

Lots of words...

So we agree that "directness" is a relative concept.

What we doesnt agree on is wether there is a real difference between observation and measurement in this respect.

You see: measurement is an observation.

 

[fast]

There is a difference, and the difference is real, for even if every instance of a measurement is an instance of an observation, not every instance of an observation is an instance of a measurement--in fewer words