fast
Contributor
I saw someone. I looked directly at her. I saw her directly. She is a blonde.
Then, I saw someone else. I looked at her through the mirror. I saw her but indirectly. She is a brunette.
I saw the blonde directly, and I saw the brunette indirectly, so I observed both the blonde and the brunette; however, although it's the case I saw the brunette indirectly, it's not the case I observed the brunette indirectly. I directly observed the blonde, and I directly observed the brunette despite the fact I saw the blonde directly and saw the brunette indirectly.
How is that? It has to do with the fact about how "directly" and "indirectly" mean something different when applying it to what we see versus what we observe. But why? Because in science, "observation" has a very specialized meaning.
In science, to observe is very broad on more than one front. To hear is not to see, but both hearing and seeing is a way to observe. In fact, any of our senses can be employed and considered as observing. That's one front, the use of our senses. The second front has to do with measuring, whatever that measuring tool may be, so even if I cannot detect something with my senses but can nevertheless measure something, it can accurately be said that we have observed something. In each case, that is a direct observation.
An indirect observation, on the other hand, is where we deduce a fact. That means there is a deduction occurring. Essentially, where there can be a deduction, there can be an argument. A direct observation needs no argument, but an indirect observation does. For instance, if we postulate that X exists because of our ability to measure its effect on Y, then X is an indirect observation.
The following is where things begin to get sticky:
We're not always as well equipped to measure what we'd like to. When the act of measuring interferes with what's trying to be measured, there's a fundamental question of whether we've actually measured what we've sought to measure and whether we've observed what we've attempted to observe.
For example, trying to use massive photons while measuring puny electrons. We're told something that sounds kind of spooky (that observation alone can affect an outcome)--until we recognize that no, looking in this instance can't stand good as observation. Often times, looking and seeing can (and most often does) stand good as an observation, but no, no, no, not when dealing with photons for crying out loud.
We apparently have this idea that not every instance of observing is an instance of seeing. That is true, but (and here's what I have to say): not every instance of seeing is an instance of observation.
Case in point: the act of seeing (involving photons) skews our ability to observe, especially when what we're trying to measure and observe is being affected by the very things that allows us to see.
Then, I saw someone else. I looked at her through the mirror. I saw her but indirectly. She is a brunette.
I saw the blonde directly, and I saw the brunette indirectly, so I observed both the blonde and the brunette; however, although it's the case I saw the brunette indirectly, it's not the case I observed the brunette indirectly. I directly observed the blonde, and I directly observed the brunette despite the fact I saw the blonde directly and saw the brunette indirectly.
How is that? It has to do with the fact about how "directly" and "indirectly" mean something different when applying it to what we see versus what we observe. But why? Because in science, "observation" has a very specialized meaning.
In science, to observe is very broad on more than one front. To hear is not to see, but both hearing and seeing is a way to observe. In fact, any of our senses can be employed and considered as observing. That's one front, the use of our senses. The second front has to do with measuring, whatever that measuring tool may be, so even if I cannot detect something with my senses but can nevertheless measure something, it can accurately be said that we have observed something. In each case, that is a direct observation.
An indirect observation, on the other hand, is where we deduce a fact. That means there is a deduction occurring. Essentially, where there can be a deduction, there can be an argument. A direct observation needs no argument, but an indirect observation does. For instance, if we postulate that X exists because of our ability to measure its effect on Y, then X is an indirect observation.
The following is where things begin to get sticky:
We're not always as well equipped to measure what we'd like to. When the act of measuring interferes with what's trying to be measured, there's a fundamental question of whether we've actually measured what we've sought to measure and whether we've observed what we've attempted to observe.
For example, trying to use massive photons while measuring puny electrons. We're told something that sounds kind of spooky (that observation alone can affect an outcome)--until we recognize that no, looking in this instance can't stand good as observation. Often times, looking and seeing can (and most often does) stand good as an observation, but no, no, no, not when dealing with photons for crying out loud.
We apparently have this idea that not every instance of observing is an instance of seeing. That is true, but (and here's what I have to say): not every instance of seeing is an instance of observation.
Case in point: the act of seeing (involving photons) skews our ability to observe, especially when what we're trying to measure and observe is being affected by the very things that allows us to see.
)
