8. The Theory-Ladenness of Observation

2020 ◽  
pp. 145-160
Keyword(s):  
Synthese ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Themistoklis Pantazakos

AbstractRecent years have seen enticing empirical approaches to solving the epistemological problem of the theory-ladenness of observation. I group these approaches in two categories according to their method of choice: testing and refereeing. I argue that none deliver what friends of theory-neutrality want them to. Testing does not work because both evidence from cognitive neuroscience and perceptual pluralism independently invalidate the existence of a common observation core. Refereeing does not work because it treats theory-ladenness as a kind of superficial, removable bias. Even if such treatment is plausible, there is likely no method to ascertain that effects of this bias are not present. More importantly, evidence from cognitive neuroscience suggests that a deeper, likely irremovable kind of theory-ladenness lies within the perceptual modules.


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Votsis ◽  
Michela Tacca ◽  
Gerhard Schurz

Literator ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 42-59
Author(s):  
M. E. Botha

Although there are important areas of overlap, the problem of realism differs in the contexts of philosophy, science and literature. What is common to all three realms is the fact that the empiricist notion of objectivity is not tenable any more. The recognition of the theory ladenness of scientific observation and the commentary ladenness of interpretation in literature is in fundamental contrast with the older views of objectivity which have dominated the scene for such a long time. The notion of realism inherent in this older view of objectivity in which science, philosophy or literature somehow “mirrors” the world, has fundamentally been affected by the overthrow of the objectivist tradition through developments in philosophy of science and developments in metaphor theory in which the emphasis on “literal” descriptions of reality have made way for the recognition of the relative distinction between the literal and the metaphorical. Both science and literature have acknowledged the possibility of a potential plurality of possible interpretations of “reality”. This means that as many “realities” exist as interpretations of reality and of texts are possible. This has confronted both science and literature with the need for a fundamentally revised notion of “realism” and of truth and has posed the very real problem of the (im-)possibility of convergence toward truth, reality or the one and only “correct” interpretation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document