Fluent Essays

Write a brief summary (less than 250 words) in point form of either the concept of Whig history or the theory loading of observation based on the readings or lecture notes.Reference: Author-Date Harvard Referencing systemThis theory allows for students to get feedback on their comprehension of basic introductory concepts.I have attached the class notes and other detailsPlease do good work.STS 112 David Mercer The ‘Theory loading of Observation’ and its implications for doing history of science Naive theory of observation • The material world is a systematic collection of facts • Looking at this world (the object), is the perceiving subject, equipped with their visual and cognitive apparatus • Assuming the subject, is unbiased, free from social or cultural prejudices, they will receive true perceptions of external facts FIGURE 2 NAIVE VIEW OF PERCEPTION Reality (System of given facts) fact eye brain perception of fact World→Fact→Sense Organ→Nervous System→Brain→True Perception Of Fact “true knowledge” should be a perfect mirror image of external reality Slide: Courtesy of Bob Brown after J.S. Schuster: The Scientific Revolution Naive theory of observation Naïve Empiricism • Image of human observer a little like a camera that can take ‘objective’ pictures of the outside world • In these traditions of ‘epistemology’ normally also assumed that humans can then accurately record/ report these observations without distortion and also build them into theories. • As you can imagine, some debate about how this can best be done and how we can try to make sure people aren’t mistaken or biased and can use ‘objective’ language to report what they see. Influences some simple textbook models of science Slide: Courtesy of Bob Brown after J.S. Schuster: The Scientific Revolution FIGURE 2 THE METHOD STORY hypothesis report generalise (induction) observe Nature= System of given fact Test vs Nature deduce prediction Test OK hypothesis law Test not OK Start over Implications for doing history of science If we take these simple views on board uncritically they encourage a vision of the history of science as simply an ongoing accumulation of more and more observations and facts. In this approach when views of past scientists disagree with the present it must be the result of either their incorrect observations or their lack of observations. The role of the historian of science is then, to document the accumulation of knowledge and the sources of distortion which might explain errors in past science. This is a very limited vision. Critiques of naïve empiricism Numerous areas of scholarship have suggested that observation is a much more complex process than indicated in the previous slides and that a lot more is involved in humans building knowledge of the world than simply building up observations Examples • Psychologists and cognitive scientists interested in processes of perception and cognition • Philosophers interested in epistemology and theories of the mind. • Educationalists studying learning processes. • Anthropologists studying differences between cultures. • Art Historians noting at different times people perceive art differently. • Linguists interested in the way people structure and make sense of language. • Historian