Conflicts Between Reason and Observation

If you do the same experiment and make the same observation 10 times, you may get 10 different results. An observation necessarily involves interpretation. This is why in science you 1) standardize the method of observation, and 2) make it many times. This improves your confidence.

Just because an observation can't be explained doesn't put it at odds with reason. It just means you can't explain it. There are lots of phenomena we can't explain. It's probably because we haven't observed them enough or observed them in the right way.

I would argue, contrary to these gents above, that each moment of experience is unique or distinct. Hence, an obervation cannot be repeated. If the statistical generalization (reason, empiric science) contradicts actual experience, the statistical generalization is wrong (or rather inapplicable), not the actual experience. An objective view is only ever correct or indeed existent on reflection: in memory. One cannot ever in the present suppose that his actual experience is wrong. A scientific interpretation and the actual experience of the world cannot really be at odds, as they do not exist at the same time.

Of course an observation cannot be LITERALLY repeated. But a finding can be repeatedly demonstrated, and therefore in science you can draw inferences and generalize.

I think this is a great question. Clearly it is possible for reason and empiricism to at least appear to be in conflict. It happens in physics all the time. As Feynman famously said, in physics the way we have to describe Nature is incomprehensible to us. Kant had this problem, for he reasoned that spacetime phenomena are unreal but observed that they are real. Personally, I think the problem is that he forgot that observation requires reasoning. He did not observe the reality of phenomena, he reasoned from his observations that they are real. Thus the conflict between reason and empiricism was only apparent. To answer your general question, I'd say that such conflicts are only ever apparent. In mysticism such conflicts do not arise, but in physics and philosophy they are everywhere.


If I understand what you mean I'd say no, as long as we bear in mind that all inputs from our senses are value-laden. I doubt there is no such thing as a pure observation.


In the case of a conflict I'd say it must always be our reason that is in error. Either we are misinterpreting our observations or making philosophical mistakes. Dialethists believe that there are true contradictions, but I'm not one of them.


I'd say yes and yes. Understanding is not observation, and I don't believe there can ever be a true conflict between reason and empiricism.

"...is it possible for observation to be at odds with our reason?"

This is an interesting question, but I think it would help if we provided some concrete examples of this kind of conflict. This would also, perhaps, clarify precisely what is mean by "reason."

I thought I gave one in Kant's philosophy. QM is obviously the obvious one.