4 ms·
indeed, every time i see such articles i remember my high school teachers’ metaphor: in science when we “observe” a phenomena doesn’t necessarily mean that we s
by hankchinaski 6y ago
indeed, every time i see such articles i remember my high school teachers’ metaphor: in science when we “observe” a phenomena doesn’t necessarily mean that we see it literally, like when we drop a pen to the floor and we hear the sound, we know a pen has fallen to the floor although we haven’t actually seen it with our eyes
- lisper 6y agoThere is actually an inverse correlation between the directness of an observation and the quality of the data. The human brain and sensory system are remarkable, but also limited and easily fooled. It is optimized for detecting food and predators, and reading the facial expressions of other humans, not making scientific observations. This is why, when accuracy matters, we build machines to do the work of observing for us.
- lioeters 6y agoThank you for pointing out the distinction between "direct" observation through human senses, and machine-mediated observation for accurate scientific measurements. It clarifies the motivation for extension/augmentation of human perception through technology, from microscopes to telescopes - and spectacles/glasses for that matter. It also implies a continuation of the trend, where more and more of human perception will be mediated by technology, to benefit from advantages like accuracy, long-term memory/storage for data collection and statistics. I guess augmented/virtual reality is part of it, where we can now perceive and experience a fully technology-mediated world, both real and imaginary. I picture sci-fi possibilities, like being able to "zoom in" to see things at magnifications beyond human biological limits - all controlled by thoughts.