Does Charmus’ negative view of observation devalue its importance as a starting point for scientific theories?

Although Charmus criticizes observation as a starting point for scientific theories because it cannot be objective, observation is still a key element of scientific progress, and modern scientific techniques overcome its limitations.

 

“In Modern Philosophy of Science, Chalmers presents a negative view of observation. This is not only his view, but also the prevailing view in the scientific community. They argue that observation can never be a perfectly objective indicator, and therefore scientific theories based on observation are unacceptable. They argue that observation cannot be used as a reliable indicator because our sensory organs are imperfect and the same situation can be perceived differently by different people in different situations. However, contrary to this view, observation is actually a key starting point for scientific theories.
“In Modern Philosophy of Science, Charmus criticizes observation in a number of ways. In particular, he makes this clear through his criticism of inductivism. While inductivists argue that science begins with observation, Charmus points out that while the act of observation itself may be objective, the way we perceive what we observe is subjective and varies from person to person. Furthermore, in order to verify the validity of observational statements, we must rely on other observational statements and theoretical generalizations, which directly conflicts with the inductivist’s claim that we should rely on more robust observational statements and the laws that can be derived from them. Thus, Charmus criticizes the inductivists’ claim that science begins with observation.
But I see observation as the starting point of all science. Science began to explain natural phenomena, and while there were many superstitions and errors along the way, this process led to modern science, which is considered relatively accurate. Without observation, science would never have gotten off the ground, and there are many examples of curiosity generated by observation leading to research. One such example is the well-known story of Newton’s apple. Newton “observed” an apple falling, and his scientific thinking led him to develop Newtonian mechanics. In the process of scientific research, scientists are constantly observing, recording their observations, and developing their findings.
Charmus criticizes the fact that observation cannot be perceived objectively by humans. However, this can be overcome by the many instruments developed for modern scientific inquiry, such as telescopes and microscopes. These instruments provide humans with new “eyes” and “ears,” especially through the sense of sight. Increasingly, visual data is being used to detect phenomena that cannot be observed directly. This visualization process wouldn’t be necessary if direct human observation didn’t play such an important role in science.
While acknowledging the importance of observation, Charmus points out that it is overemphasized in inductivism, especially since observations cannot be objective, as observers often have a preconceived notion of what they want to get out of the observation. However, these limitations are gradually being overcome by advanced technology. Not only are our senses becoming more sophisticated, but we are also able to compare data objectively, for example by quantifying what we observe, thus overcoming the limitations of observation.
Another of Charmus’s arguments against inductivism is that observational statements presuppose a theory. Since accurate observational statements are only possible with accurate theories, all observational statements must be preceded by a theory, which flies in the face of inductivists’ claim that observation is the starting point of science. But there is no such thing as an “accurate theory,” and even the theories that are considered accurate have been tested by countless observations. We can only understand the world we can perceive, and the limits of our perception are set by what we can sense and observe. Theories that are proven and confirmed by observation can help guide future observations, enable more sophisticated observations, and make predictions and implications. However, the importance of observations should be emphasized more than the claim that theories lead to observations and that observations made only from theories are meaningful.
This article is not an endorsement of inductivist scientific theories. Rather, I want to show that the scientific tool of observation, which has been devalued throughout the discussion, is actually important. It is acknowledged that humans can look at the same object at the same time and see it differently depending on the angle and observer. But that uncertainty is our limitation, and we can only do the best we can within that limitation. In the course of the development of science, things that were previously considered errors were eventually recognized as errors because they were perceived through the senses. We can only gain scientific meaning and truth to the extent that we can perceive it.