Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,252 Year: 6,509/9,624 Month: 87/270 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3967
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 352 of 614 (734855)
08-02-2014 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by petrophysics1
08-01-2014 9:38 PM


I think that observation involves interpratation
I got tired of all this "It's just interpretation" crap, and I needed a simple example of what myself and all geologists do. I measure things and then am forced into logical conclusions based upon my observations.
Of coarse it is necessary to know how to make observations, things like identifying minerals, rocks or fossils and accurately placing them in 3-D space.
I think that knowing how to make observations includes being able to interpret smaller observations and consolidate that into a larger observation.
By that I mean, what a knowledgeable and experienced geologist can observe is because s/he can interpret the details.
Example of how 3 different people could observe the same plutonic igneous rock sample:
4 year old child - Oh, it's a hard thing having shiny colored parts.
Beginner geologist - I'm pretty sure it's an igneous rock.
Experienced specialized geologist - It's a piece of {insert obscure highly specialized rock name}.
They're all looking at the same thing, but the experienced specialized geologist is seeing (observing) so much more. S/he's observing so much more because s/he knows how to interpret all the details that make up the rock, and is subconsciously doing such.
Thus, what would be a simple observation for one person, would be far beyond the ability of the 4 year old child, and would at least require a substantial effort of conscious study and interpretation for the beginner geologist.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by petrophysics1, posted 08-01-2014 9:38 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 9:42 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3967
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 438 of 614 (735240)
08-07-2014 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by herebedragons
08-07-2014 1:10 PM


Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science
The paper Faith cited (actually came from roxrcool) that to her seemed to say that geology was not a real science but was distinct as a historical science actually made the opposite point. The days of direct observation are pretty much gone, those discoveries have been worked out. Today's sciences rely on a tremendous amount of inductive reasoning, a skill that geology has perfected. The authors argued that for this reason, geology was a model for other sciences to follow. Far from the claim of being "inferior."
I can't find the source, if someone else remembers where it is link it, otherwise I may try to find it later.
I think this is what you're looking for:
Error 404 -- Page Not Found | Bryn Mawr College
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024