Direct versus indirect

[Juma]

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

Sorry. I used the wrong wording.Every observation has a measurement.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

We use logic here? How so exactly?
EB

 

[Juma]

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.

We use logic here? How so exactly?
EB

What you observe is that one of the shoelaces is not matched by the other shoelace. How does that indicate that it is longer?

 

[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

Sorry. I used the wrong wording.Every observation has a measurement.

http://youtu.be/iqrx3_wZf08

Scientific observation #1) The object is colorful.
Scientific observation #2) It has five soft petals and two green leaves.
Scientific observation #3) It smells like perfume.

That was at the three minute mark of the video.

The only scientific observation that includes measurement would be scientific observation #2, which includes the count of the soft petals and count of the green leaves. Since scientific observations #1 and #3 included no measurement, those observations should stand good to support the premise that not every observation has a measurement.

 

[Juma]

Sorry. I used the wrong wording.Every observation has a measurement.

http://youtu.be/iqrx3_wZf08

Scientific observation #1) The object is colorful.
Scientific observation #2) It has five soft petals and two green leaves.
Scientific observation #3) It smells like perfume.

That was at the three minute mark of the video.

The only scientific observation that includes measurement would be scientific observation #2, which includes the count of the soft petals and count of the green leaves. Since scientific observations #1 and #3 included no measurement, those observations should stand good to support the premise that not every observation has a measurement.

"Colourful" is a measure value. "Smells like perfume" is a measurement.

 

[fast]

http://youtu.be/iqrx3_wZf08

Scientific observation #1) The object is colorful.
Scientific observation #2) It has five soft petals and two green leaves.
Scientific observation #3) It smells like perfume.

That was at the three minute mark of the video.

The only scientific observation that includes measurement would be scientific observation #2, which includes the count of the soft petals and count of the green leaves. Since scientific observations #1 and #3 included no measurement, those observations should stand good to support the premise that not every observation has a measurement.

"Colourful" is a measure value. "Smells like perfume" is a measurement.

Hmmm. Not sure what to say to that. It doesn't strike me as such. Had you said color and smell are measurable, I likely would have responded that something can be measurable yet not measured. I'm not sure where to go from here except to say that it's sounds odd, almost as if it's such an extreme example of something to say is a measurement that it escapes the scope of what one would ordinarily classify as a measurement.

I wouldn't characterize a person with a very slight receding hairline as bald, even if the percentifiers among us say he's .01% bald, as it stretches the bounds of what it is to say of someone that he's bald. I don't know if that example reflects the nature of how it can be that someone could call those observations a measurement or something else.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Observations are always indirect else they would be self evident to all. We know that isn't true because scientific confirmation depends of replication of operations.

 

[fast]

It is best to view the term, "indirect observation" as a single two-worded term rather than two single-worded terms, and that's because the meaning under contention has evolved beyond the combined individual meanings. You ought not glean the meaning of the term "indirect" and impose it upon the term "indirect observation" merely because it precedes the term "observation," and that's because it doesn't denote what it otherwise would; moreover, it's ambiguous.

 

[Juma]

It is best to view the term, "indirect observation" as a single two-worded term rather than two single-worded terms, and that's because the meaning under contention has evolved beyond the combined individual meanings. You ought not glean the meaning of the term "indirect" and impose it upon the term "indirect observation" merely because it precedes the term "observation," and that's because it doesn't denote what it otherwise would; moreover, it's ambiguous.

Its your OP. You should define your terms.

 

[fast]

It is best to view the term, "indirect observation" as a single two-worded term rather than two single-worded terms, and that's because the meaning under contention has evolved beyond the combined individual meanings. You ought not glean the meaning of the term "indirect" and impose it upon the term "indirect observation" merely because it precedes the term "observation," and that's because it doesn't denote what it otherwise would; moreover, it's ambiguous.

Its your OP. You should define your terms.

I want to be careful while addressing this issue. Why you are saying I should do that is important. If I wanted to use the terms in an odd, unusual, or alternative way and go on to stipulate a personal usage, then yes, absolutely I should define (in fact define) the terms I'm using. But, I have every desire to use the terms as they are commonly used so that others don't have to guess what I mean by what I say. Of course, I could (for pure clarification purposes) define the terms I'm using anyway (or rather convey how they are commonly used and put no work into actually redefining them).

That being said, I have to recognize that a subtle distinction may be lost on the unwary. A lot of people do recognize the difference between lexical usage and stipulative usage, and I almost always prefer to speak as words are understood in our lexicon, but it just so happens that many terms we commonly use are also commonly accepted stipulative usages peculiar to their respective fields. The important point here is that just because a term might be stipulative, it may not necessarily be a product of personal usage, so while I generally avoid stipulative usage, I ought not do so while speaking in the vernacular amongst those that speak using terms as they're often used in their fields--if I want to remain true to my intention to not invoke my own personal usage.

The reason we should not look to the definition of "direct" as a full explanation of what is meant has a lot to do with the fact that the term, "direct" when speaking about observation may not accord well. See, even though there is a lexical meaning for "direct", there is also a stipulative usage of "direct observation" that exists independent of my views on its usage, and since apart of that term is being used in science, we must be careful not to conflate what is meant by scientists by looking to how it's otherwise used by fluent speakers of our language.

When he says all observations are indirect, he is not speaking as a scientist would speak, for he is invoking a usage of "indirect" that does not correspond to how it's stipulated by those in the field that commonly use the term.

 

[Juma]

Its your OP. You should define your terms.

I want to be careful while addressing this issue. Why you are saying I should do that is important. If I wanted to use the terms in an odd, unusual, or alternative way and go on to stipulate a personal usage, then yes, absolutely I should define (in fact define) the terms I'm using. But, I have every desire to use the terms as they are commonly used so that others don't have to guess what I mean by what I say. Of course, I could (for pure clarification purposes) define the terms I'm using anyway (or rather convey how they are commonly used and put no work into actually redefining them).

That being said, I have to recognize that a subtle distinction may be lost on the unwary. A lot of people do recognize the difference between lexical usage and stipulative usage, and I almost always prefer to speak as words are understood in our lexicon, but it just so happens that many terms we commonly use are also commonly accepted stipulative usages peculiar to their respective fields. The important point here is that just because a term might be stipulative, it may not necessarily be a product of personal usage, so while I generally avoid stipulative usage, I ought not do so while speaking in the vernacular amongst those that speak using terms as they're often used in their fields--if I want to remain true to my intention to not invoke my own personal usage.

The reason we should not look to the definition of "direct" as a full explanation of what is meant has a lot to do with the fact that the term, "direct" when speaking about observation may not accord well. See, even though there is a lexical meaning for "direct", there is also a stipulative usage of "direct observation" that exists independent of my views on its usage, and since apart of that term is being used in science, we must be careful not to conflate what is meant by scientists by looking to how it's otherwise used by fluent speakers of our language.

When he says all observations are indirect, he is not speaking as a scientist would speak, for he is invoking a usage of "indirect" that does not correspond to how it's stipulated by those in the field that commonly use the term.

By not defining the terms you make any useful communication impossible.

But that is your chioice.

 

[fast]

I want to be careful while addressing this issue. Why you are saying I should do that is important. If I wanted to use the terms in an odd, unusual, or alternative way and go on to stipulate a personal usage, then yes, absolutely I should define (in fact define) the terms I'm using. But, I have every desire to use the terms as they are commonly used so that others don't have to guess what I mean by what I say. Of course, I could (for pure clarification purposes) define the terms I'm using anyway (or rather convey how they are commonly used and put no work into actually redefining them).

That being said, I have to recognize that a subtle distinction may be lost on the unwary. A lot of people do recognize the difference between lexical usage and stipulative usage, and I almost always prefer to speak as words are understood in our lexicon, but it just so happens that many terms we commonly use are also commonly accepted stipulative usages peculiar to their respective fields. The important point here is that just because a term might be stipulative, it may not necessarily be a product of personal usage, so while I generally avoid stipulative usage, I ought not do so while speaking in the vernacular amongst those that speak using terms as they're often used in their fields--if I want to remain true to my intention to not invoke my own personal usage.

The reason we should not look to the definition of "direct" as a full explanation of what is meant has a lot to do with the fact that the term, "direct" when speaking about observation may not accord well. See, even though there is a lexical meaning for "direct", there is also a stipulative usage of "direct observation" that exists independent of my views on its usage, and since apart of that term is being used in science, we must be careful not to conflate what is meant by scientists by looking to how it's otherwise used by fluent speakers of our language.

When he says all observations are indirect, he is not speaking as a scientist would speak, for he is invoking a usage of "indirect" that does not correspond to how it's stipulated by those in the field that commonly use the term.

By not defining the terms you make any useful communication impossible.

But that is your chioice.

That's beyond my skillset, unfortunately. Plus, I might inadvertently add unintentional bias. I would very much like to clarify how I'm using the terms (or would like to use the terms) by conveying their definitions, but I'd probably need to further study the topic. My first thought would be to hide the dictionaries and pull out some quality books with an outstanding glossary.

 

[fromderinside]

It is best to view the term, "indirect observation" as a single two-worded term rather than two single-worded terms, and that's because the meaning under contention has evolved beyond the combined individual meanings. You ought not glean the meaning of the term "indirect" and impose it upon the term "indirect observation" merely because it precedes the term "observation," and that's because it doesn't denote what it otherwise would; moreover, it's ambiguous.

So I replace 'see' with photon capture to transmitter trigger to transmitter uptake to increase surface potential to release level to ionic transfer to ..... and then someone is trained to report directly seeing red. Like that?

Observations by sentient being about whom we know is always indirect.

 

[fast]

It is best to view the term, "indirect observation" as a single two-worded term rather than two single-worded terms, and that's because the meaning under contention has evolved beyond the combined individual meanings. You ought not glean the meaning of the term "indirect" and impose it upon the term "indirect observation" merely because it precedes the term "observation," and that's because it doesn't denote what it otherwise would; moreover, it's ambiguous.

So I replace 'see' with photon capture to transmitter trigger to transmitter uptake to increase surface potential to release level to ionic transfer to ..... and then someone is trained to report directly seeing red. Like that?

Observations by sentient being about whom we know is always indirect.

Even if it's true that all observations are indirect, be they scientific observations or not, it would still be the case that most scientific observations are direct scientific observations, as a scientific direct observation being indirect has no contradictory effect.

 

[Juma]

So I replace 'see' with photon capture to transmitter trigger to transmitter uptake to increase surface potential to release level to ionic transfer to ..... and then someone is trained to report directly seeing red. Like that?

Observations by sentient being about whom we know is always indirect.

Even if it's true that all observations are indirect, be they scientific observations or not, it would still be the case that most scientific observations are direct scientific observations, as a scientific direct observation being indirect has no contradictory effect.

This text is total gallimatias until you explain what usage/context/discours you are refering to.

 

[fast]

Even if it's true that all observations are indirect, be they scientific observations or not, it would still be the case that most scientific observations are direct scientific observations, as a scientific direct observation being indirect has no contradictory effect.

This text is total gallimatias until you explain what usage/context/discours you are refering to.

When saying of an observation that it is direct when discussing scientific observations, the usage of the term, "direct" (and I'm telling you because you asked) is a stipulative usage. That's as opposed to a lexical usage. In particular, it's how people of science would use the term.

For instance, if someone claims that our scientific observation that the moon rotates around our planet is not a direct observation, people of science would deny that the observation is an indirect observation--as they should because they know the difference between direct observations and indirect observations, and they know the difference between the corresponding terms as stipulatively used amongst professionals and amateurs alike in the scientific community.

Now, when armchair Willy Waltzes his happy dancing ass up and shouts out "that's an indirect observation", everybody in the room (well, except me because I'm not merely smart) is going to be caught off guard and fail to immediately grasp exactly what is being expressed. To the ear when those words are spoken sounds like a denial to the scientist that the observation is a direct observation, and to the non-scientists as well, it sounds like a denial that the observation is a direct observation. So, to all the smart people out there in the room, laymen and scientists alike, it seems so pretty clear to all in earshot that he disagrees that the observation is a direct observation and says aloud that the observation is an indirect observation. Clear to those that are merely smart, that is.

The tale-tell sign that should give us pause is the expressed thought that all observations are indirect observations. Dancing Willy hasn't a clue what an indirect observation is, and he even has less of a clue what those terms mean when stipulatively used by those fluent in science-speak.

He's denying something alright, but smart people can't base what that is on what he says alone, since what he says isn't what he means. Oh, he means something alright, but it's not what everyone in earshot thinks he means.

If anything should be abundantly clear, it's that a stipulative usage is a special kind of usage that if anything, is DIFFERENT than a lexical usage. Since Mr. I can dance the Waltz hasn't even a remote clue what an indirect observation is, as used by those in the know, and since he's saying it's not an indirect observation, it's not that he wrong. All the eyes just started popping and ears started buzzing. Listen, if he's he wrong about what he's saying, let's have a clue about what he means before we say so.

The denial is a denial, yes, but it's not a denial that it's a direct observation, as used stipulatively. It's a denial that it's a direct observation, as used lexically (without the influence of how it's usage is specialized).

What the laymen needs to realize is that the assertion that something is a direct observation is not necessarily a denial about what the laymen may otherwise think.

 

[Juma]

This text is total gallimatias until you explain what usage/context/discours you are refering to.

When saying of an observation that it is direct when discussing scientific observations, the usage of the term, "direct" (and I'm telling you because you asked) is a stipulative usage. That's as opposed to a lexical usage. In particular, it's how people of science would use the term.

For instance, if someone claims that our scientific observation that the moon rotates around our planet is not a direct observation, people of science would deny that the observation is an indirect observation--as they should because they know the difference between direct observations and indirect observations, and they know the difference between the corresponding terms as stipulatively used amongst professionals and amateurs alike in the scientific community.

Now, when armchair Willy Waltzes his happy dancing ass up and shouts out "that's an indirect observation", everybody in the room (well, except me because I'm not merely smart) is going to be caught off guard and fail to immediately grasp exactly what is being expressed. To the ear when those words are spoken sounds like a denial to the scientist that the observation is a direct observation, and to the non-scientists as well, it sounds like a denial that the observation is a direct observation. So, to all the smart people out there in the room, laymen and scientists alike, it seems so pretty clear to all in earshot that he disagrees that the observation is a direct observation and says aloud that the observation is an indirect observation. Clear to those that are merely smart, that is.

The tale-tell sign that should give us pause is the expressed thought that all observations are indirect observations. Dancing Willy hasn't a clue what an indirect observation is, and he even has less of a clue what those terms mean when stipulatively used by those fluent in science-speak.

He's denying something alright, but smart people can't base what that is on what he says alone, since what he says isn't what he means. Oh, he means something alright, but it's not what everyone in earshot thinks he means.

If anything should be abundantly clear, it's that a stipulative usage is a special kind of usage that if anything, is DIFFERENT than a lexical usage. Since Mr. I can dance the Waltz hasn't even a remote clue what an indirect observation is, as used by those in the know, and since he's saying it's not an indirect observation, it's not that he wrong. All the eyes just started popping and ears started buzzing. Listen, if he's he wrong about what he's saying, let's have a clue about what he means before we say so.

The denial is a denial, yes, but it's not a denial that it's direct observation, as used stipulatively. If a denial that it's a direct observation, as used lexically (without the influence of how it's usage is specialized).

What the laymen needs to realize is that the assertion that something is a direct observation is not necessarily a denial about what the laymen may otherwise think.

How can "moon rotates around the earth" be adirect observation for anyone? Is it also a direct observation that the sun rotates around the earth?

 

[fast]

By tracking it

 

[fromderinside]

By tracking it

So tracking a star that passes behind the sun is seen to be above the sun and below the sun. Are these direct observations? Or is it because theory predicts such due to gravitational effect of the sun on light that these are direct observations? I only say this because I want a better sense of what you mean by direct observation. I still hold to the fact that all observations by humans are indirect even though we know every operation performed by them before we claim we see.

Let me say that we also distinguish something not obviously stimulated by outside sources as imaginary observations, a third class, if others are convinced there was no stimulation for the claim of seeing, hearing, etc. Now if this is why you are claiming we see directly you need to adjust. It is concurrence you are talking about and not direct seeing.

dancing Willy

 

[fast]

By tracking it

So tracking a star that passes behind the sun is seen to be above the sun and below the sun. Are these direct observations? Or is it because theory predicts such due to gravitational effect of the sun on light that these are direct observations? I only say this because I want a better sense of what you mean by direct observation. I still hold to the fact that all observations by humans are indirect even though we know every operation performed by them before we claim we see.

Let me say that we also distinguish something not obviously stimulated by outside sources as imaginary observations, a third class, if others are convinced there was no stimulation for the claim of seeing, hearing, etc. Now if this is why you are claiming we see directly you need to adjust. It is concurrence you are talking about and not direct seeing.

dancing Willy

I was afraid that might happen. My apologies. I borrowed from what you had said, but it was not my intent to be disparaging towards you.