This piece makes me question what the real definition of
observation. If many early philosophers had a problem with the microscope as a way
to observe, than surely we must look closer at what observation really means.
To me, there has to be a point in which two people look at something and see
the exact same thing. For example, if a book is on the table, and nothing else.
Two people should be able to say exactly that. However, images are often the way
we identify so many things in our lives, yet if we observe them incorrectly
from day one, we are often unable to thing of them any differently. My example
for this is a traditional world map. There is distortion involved when looking
and creating a 2D map. Whether they are emphasizing or exaggerating certain
areas or landscapes we are manipulated in believing areas to look how they are
in the map, size-wise and in location to other areas. Here is a good article on
whether maps create or represent reality:
When we think of science, pictures/illustrations might not
come to mind. Often I think of data, charts, and hypotheses. However, when
thinking back to my geology 101 text book, I remember a lot of illustrations,
at least one per page. As McLuhan says, “The art of making pictorial statements
in a precise and repeatable form is one that has long been taken granted for in
the West.” Without these things, modern science and technology wouldn’t exist.
We as a society are lucky we can rely on images to more simply and easily
understand often complex issues. However, the way we perceive plate tectonics
for example, is based on the images we have seen in textbooks. These pictures
are turned into an artistic image that are not exactly natural. With that,
students should understand that, but know that with every different image,
plate tectonics will appear different, even if it is just by a little bit.
First of all, that was a great link you provided, and if anyone skipped over it while reading this post, I definitely recommend to go back and read the linked article. At one point, the article stated, "Much of the reason that maps so often go unquestioned is that they have become so scientific and "artless."" This ties right in with the "science vs. art" theme in our readings. What I mean by science vs. art is that we tend to view science as objective and authoritative in contrast to art, which we think is subjective and open to questioning. That is why the "scientific appeal" of computer simulations cause us to trust them--even to the point of staking human lives on them (I'm referencing Wolf's discussion of flight, medical, and automobile simulations). Some people could probably substitute the word "science" for the word "God" in the phrase, "In God we trust." We expect science to be objective, outside of ourselves, and "all-knowing," yes? We trust science precisely because we view it as "agenda-less" and "untainted" by human perception. But at the heart of science is observation, and you ask "what the real definition of observation" is. You stated that, "there has to be a point in which two people look at something and see the exact same thing," which would imply that observation could reach complete objectivity and reality as physical actuality. But can two people really see the exact same thing? Sure, as in your example, two people can agree that there's a book on the table, but they won't perceive it exactly the same way as the other person--you'd have to be the other person in order to do that....Hm, I just lost my train of thought. I guess my question is: where do we find a balance in trust/distrust of images we deem as "scientific" or "artistic"?
ReplyDeleteCassidy,
ReplyDeleteThis talk about maps brought me back in time. I was right back in that classroom of long ago, looking at the map for the first time and thinking, Really? Seven Continents? Is that all?
I had thought the world was vast and largely unexplored. I had thought it was nuanced with mystery, wrought with infinite possibilities. Then I saw the map, and my conception of the world became compressed into an ordinary structure with clearly demarcated boundaries. The outlines of the land purported that the vast expanse had been exhausted, every inch explored. Recognition of those markings on the map marked the beginning of my departure from the profound.
Now I know these assumptions to be untrue, but the disillusionment lingers. This single image shocked my childhood foundation to its depths. But it was highly assumptive and misleading. From this I’m starting to see the power in abstract illustrations and the cause for concern over their inherent distortion of the natural world.
-Aaron