issue 157 首稿限时，507字；第二次修改后613字

cilenUID: 2118875

Whether observation is subjective or objective is a complex issue--one that is fraught with the defing of observation, subjective and objective. I fundamentally agree that there is no purely objective observation. Nevertheless I concede observation can be objective to some extent and some stages.

To begin with, let us define what observation is. Observation is a record or reflects of the facts on the one hand, observation can also be a judgment or statement of a certain occurrence or phenomenon on the other. From the definition, we can see that observation itself can be either subjective or objective. Since a record which truly reflects the realities is independent of the individual thoughts or ideas, observation of this kind is truly objective and can not be guided by the observer's expectations or desires, while a judgment or statement necessarily involves in individual thoughts and other personal things and is subjective by birth.

In art field of literature, painting, novel etc, observation is often subjective. For example, people who have seen the starry night, one of the famous works by Vincet Van Gogh, will definitely “observe” different things. Through the ever-shining stars and the moon, some "observe" peaceful love, some "saw" furious impulse instead and still some "perceive" silence. It is difficulty to say whose observation is correct, since appreciation of a piece of work is necessarily a subjective process during which observer exchange ideas and feelings with the artist. And the artist, too, express his or her idiosyncrasy through their works. In this sense, observations in art field cannot be purely objective.

On the other hand, in science world, it is another story. Scientific observation often requires strict loyalty to truth or facts and even the description of it should be drawn very carefully. An observation must stands many times repeated test to prove its robustness and rightness until it can be accepted by the mass. Denying the objectiveness of observations in science amounts to denying the underlying principle of any scientific researches, and we will inevitably draw the pessimistic conclusion that we cannot recognize the world at all.

However, I concede that even in science field, purely observation is rare since the accuracy of scientific observation calls for professional experience and advanced equipments. For example, a century ago or so, people claimed that the nebular observed by the St. Harber's great telescope is the scratches left by the grinder. It is also the case that not every one or even every expert in the related field can see exactly the same thing, by using the same instruments. Objective observation in science world entails working experience, familiarity with the equipment and knowledge, which in turn is necessarily affected by personal factors.

Finally, it is through repeated observation and even false observation that we begin to recognize the real world. Hundreds year before, for instance, based on their "objective" obbservation people generally believe that the earth is flat and lies in the center of the university. It is until Copernicus that the earthling begian to realized the the earth is round and is only a planet revoluting around the sun, which is further confirmed by Galileo's observation. The very process of obtaining knowledge and exploit unknown show that we can get objective observation step by step, day by day. Relying on what we have observed, we are on the right way and get the truth closer and closer.

All in all, it is hard to say whether observation is objective or subjective, since observation necessarily involves human endeavor and can not be absolute irrelated with idiosyncrasy. But observation can be subjective and it is through observation that we begin to see the real world.

[ Last edited by cilen on 2005-8-4 at 02:05 ]

pigeonsnoopyUID: 2111116