Theory-ladenness: testing the ‘untestable’

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate two potential ways to experimentally test the thesis that observation is theory-laden. One is a proposal due to Schurz (J Gen Philos Sci 46:139-153, 2015) and the other my own. The two are compared and found to have some features in common. One such feature is that both proposals seek to create conditions that compel test subjects with diverse theoretical backgrounds to resort to bare (or at least as bare as possible) observational judgments. Thus, if judgments made under those conditions are convergent across test subjects, the said convergence would lend credibility to the view that theory-neutral observations are feasible. This still leaves the question of why any such convergence exists unanswered. Towards the end of the paper, it is argued that the best explanation for observational judgment convergence is the veridicality of those judgments.

Problems of empirical solutions to the theory-ladenness of observation

“…Fifth, ask everyone to match the digitised pictures with the images originally selected by the scientific experts. Sixth, record and statistically analyse their choices (Votsis, 2020(Votsis, , pp. 1455(Votsis, -1458.…”

“…In contemporary philosophy of science, the theory-ladenness of observation is an umbrella term for a variety of positions. Votsis (2020Votsis ( , p. 1449) notes that the current thesis has expanded to include way more than theories into factors influencing observation. Some such factors are: linguistic frameworks; conceptual schemes; prior beliefs; the architecture of perceptual systems.…”

“…Apparently, these positions claim quite different things. Despite this, Votsis (2020Votsis ( , p. 1449 insists that compromises in veridicality anywhere along the observation stream is bad news for realist. This is so because any token case of the above model, granted that it is true and that its input is anything but the world itself, serves to undermine the truth-probing ability of scientific theory testing.…”

“…The solution offered for O is testing (Schurz, 2015;Votsis, 2020). It amounts to searching for expertise-influenced elements within the observation core and finding none.…”

Introduction to the special issue “Logical perspectives on science and cognition”

“…However, one traditional argument against this cornerstone of empiricism is that of the theory-ladenness of observation: If observational concepts and the acceptance of observational statements vary with our background theories, then they are not inter-subjective; and if they are not intersubjective, then they are not veridical. Ioannis Votsis addresses this problem in his "Theory-Ladenness: Testing the 'Untestable'" (Votsis 2018). He proposes an experimental design for testing observational judgements with regards to theory-ladenness by help of a stimulus exchange procedure-a particular classification task in which experts and layman have to categorise "observations" in form of instrumental-produced images as well as drawings of these by the other experimental participants according to similarity (discriminability) considerations.…”