Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Forces of nature and such
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 74995566" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>Of course if you go the ad absurdam route, you can always say there must be light bouncing off and then perceived by the eye, pruned by the sensory neurons and then interpreted, etc. So any perception requires participation in a sense between observer and observed. But that is certainly not what I mean.</p><p></p><p>Certain things can be directly observed. I can pick up an object and feel its weight, its mass, its temperature and heat. I can visually perceive speed and acceleration, length and luminosity. Of course, for precision and intersubjectivity, we create scales and surrogate measuring apparatus to make sure we are all on the same page, that had been calibrated via direct human perception thereof at some point. So although often not directly observed today, they are ultimately directly observable phenomena. Other things are second order, in that they are determined via these, such as F=ma, or derived.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, as far as I know, physics defines direct observation as observation via your senses (or more generally, when I have an instrument derivitive from that sensory effect for that quality); and indirect observation, as that made by measuring something and using that to determine something else, via relation or computation. Apologies for the rough definitions, but I am not completely sure where to find my old physical measurements textbook.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, so Cavendish directly measured the angle of deflection and the length of the wire, then indirectly computed a force of torque (which is indirectly derived via measuring length ultimately) and then assuming Newton's laws, declares it equal to the force that opposes it when the system is in equilibrium, and ascribing that to the attraction between the objects. Little of that is a direct observation, and the whole only means something if you are already assuming Newton valid from the get go. It is a good experiment, but philosophically and logically, it is a circular argument as an observation of Newton's laws or gravity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 74995566, member: 385144"] Of course if you go the ad absurdam route, you can always say there must be light bouncing off and then perceived by the eye, pruned by the sensory neurons and then interpreted, etc. So any perception requires participation in a sense between observer and observed. But that is certainly not what I mean. Certain things can be directly observed. I can pick up an object and feel its weight, its mass, its temperature and heat. I can visually perceive speed and acceleration, length and luminosity. Of course, for precision and intersubjectivity, we create scales and surrogate measuring apparatus to make sure we are all on the same page, that had been calibrated via direct human perception thereof at some point. So although often not directly observed today, they are ultimately directly observable phenomena. Other things are second order, in that they are determined via these, such as F=ma, or derived. Anyway, as far as I know, physics defines direct observation as observation via your senses (or more generally, when I have an instrument derivitive from that sensory effect for that quality); and indirect observation, as that made by measuring something and using that to determine something else, via relation or computation. Apologies for the rough definitions, but I am not completely sure where to find my old physical measurements textbook. Anyway, so Cavendish directly measured the angle of deflection and the length of the wire, then indirectly computed a force of torque (which is indirectly derived via measuring length ultimately) and then assuming Newton's laws, declares it equal to the force that opposes it when the system is in equilibrium, and ascribing that to the attraction between the objects. Little of that is a direct observation, and the whole only means something if you are already assuming Newton valid from the get go. It is a good experiment, but philosophically and logically, it is a circular argument as an observation of Newton's laws or gravity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Forces of nature and such
Top
Bottom