Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Indirect observation is observation of a representation of an object. Since there is a precise distinction between an object and its representation, there is a precise distinction between direct observation and indirect observation. I think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree that the distinction is precise and objective.
|
Actually, this was a trick question. You're obviously mistaken if you think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree about
anything!
But seriously, take a look at some of the
essays on the matter, and you'll find that the distinction between direct and indirect
perception is anything but the simple matter that you're pretending it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
The same precise distinction applies to an object and its representation. Direct observation is observation of an object itself.
|
And when you see a chair, you're not seeing the chair itself, but light reflected from that chair in a certain pattern. That is, a representation of the chair in a patterned array of light. Clearly indirect, then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
That a copy can continue to exist when the original object has ceased to exist also means that the two are different entities.
|
And, of course, one can perceive the light of an object long after the object itself no longer exists or has changed dramatically. This usually isn't an issue in our common experience, but we're discussing astronomical observations, where it does become an important matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
If there is no difference between an object and its surroundings the object cannot be directly observed. That’s how natural camouflage works. However, if you observe a dark region in a light surrounding, you have observed something dark even if you cannot identify it.
|
Nope. You've observed some light, and assumed the existence of an intervening dark object (as well as inferring the existence of a bright background, of course). It's a well-founded inference, but an inference nonetheless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
The directness of the observation is not altered by the eye’s responding to only some or one of the presented wavelengths, or by the lens of the eye changing the path of the light.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
Why not?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Because those opthalmologic factors do not alter the fact that an object itself is being observed rather than a representation of the object.
|
Yet the only thing being perceived when seeing an object is the light itself, and these change that light.
Quote:
|
I hope that now we all have a clear understanding of direct and indirect observation and can return to the original point of this thread. All kinds of cosmic things have been observed, but the universe has never been observed directly or indirectly.
|
You continue to try to establish your own arbitrary definitions for such matters. Yet I'd already said several times that I was willing to grant that there is a correspondence between things we observe and things that are real. You've chosen to continue addressing this issue anyway.
Quote:
|
Is there any scientific evidence or logic that justifies the idea of the universe as a physical thing to which physical properties and histories can be attributed?
|
The universe consists of everything that exists. Provided that at least something exists, there is a universe. We observe the universe all the time, just as we see a forest when walking through it, even if we cannot see it in its entirety. We need not observe a whole object in order to say that we observe an object (indeed, we never see more than half of any object - the half that's facing us).