This blog post examines critical perspectives on Alan Chalmers’ observations and discusses the importance and role of observation in scientific theory.
In ‘What Is This Thing Called Science?’, Alan Chalmers presents a negative perspective on ‘observation’. This is a view commonly accepted not only by Alan Chalmers but also within the relevant academic community. They argue that scientific theories based on observation cannot be accepted, citing the fact that observation can never be a perfectly objective indicator in any case. They contend that human sensory organs are imperfect, meaning the same situation can be perceived differently depending on the context or the individual, rendering observation an unreliable indicator. However, contrary to this perspective, ‘observation’ is actually the core starting point for scientific theories.
In ‘What Is This Thing Called Science?’, Alan Chalmers offers multifaceted critiques of observation. Chalmers particularly clarifies this through his critique of inductivism. While inductivists claim science begins with observation, Chalmers points out that while the act of observing itself can be objective, the way the observed content is perceived differs from person to person and inevitably involves subjective elements. Furthermore, to verify the validity of an observational statement, one must rely on other observational statements and theoretical generalizations. This directly contradicts the inductivist claim that one should rely on more solid observational statements and the laws derived from them. Therefore, Alan Chalmers criticizes the inductivist claim that science begins with observation as flawed.
However, I view observation as the starting point for all science. Science began to explain natural phenomena. While this process involved numerous superstitions and errors, it ultimately gave birth to modern science, considered relatively accurate. Without observation, science could not even have begun. Furthermore, throughout science’s development, curiosity sparked by observation often became the starting point for research. The widely known story of Newton and the apple is a prime example. Newton ‘observed’ an apple falling and, based on this, developed Newtonian mechanics through scientific reasoning. Throughout the scientific research process, scientists continuously observe, record these observations, and advance their findings.
Alan Chalmers criticizes observation for being inherently subjective to human perception. However, this limitation can be overcome through the numerous instruments developed for modern scientific inquiry—such as telescopes and microscopes. These instruments act as new ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ for humans, particularly providing more information through sight. The use of visual data to detect phenomena that cannot be directly observed is increasingly common. If direct human perception did not play a significant role in science, such visualization processes would not be necessary.
Alan Chalmers acknowledges the importance of observation but points out that its significance is overly emphasized in inductivism. He cites the example that observation cannot be objective, as observers typically have preconceived goals before conducting the observation. However, these limitations are gradually being overcome by advanced technology. Not only are the senses becoming more sophisticated, but data can also be objectively compared through methods like quantifying observed materials, thereby overcoming the limitations of observation.
Another basis for Alan Chalmers’ critique of inductivism is that observational statements presuppose theory. Only accurate theories enable accurate observational statements, meaning theory must precede all observational statements. This directly contradicts inductivists’ claim that observation is the starting point of science. However, ‘accurate theories’ do not exist a priori; even theories considered accurate have been validated through numerous observations. We can only understand the world we can perceive, and the limits of our perception are determined by the scope of what we can sense and observe. Theories validated and confirmed through observation aid subsequent observations, enable more sophisticated observations, and can provide predictions and significance. However, the importance of observation should be emphasized more than the claim that theories guide observation, or that observations derived solely from theories are meaningful.
This article does not advocate for an inductivist theory of science. It merely seeks to clarify that observation, a scientific method often undervalued in discussions, is actually crucial. It is acknowledged that even when humans observe the same object at the same time, perceptions can vary depending on the angle and the observer. However, this uncertainty is a limitation inherent to us, and we must do our best within those limitations. In the development of science, things previously considered errors could only be recognized as such because they were perceived through the senses. We can only obtain scientific meaning and truth within the scope of what we can perceive.
