# All Observations are Theory Laden All observations are **theory laden** and hence [Fallible](Fallibilism.md), as all our theories are. Consider the nerve signals reaching our brains from our sense organs. Far from providing direct or untainted access to reality, even they themselves are never experienced for what they really are – namely crackles of electrical activity. Nor, for the most part, do we experience them as being where they really are – inside our brains. Instead, we place them in the reality beyond. We do not just see blue: we see a blue sky up there, far away. We do not just feel pain: we experience a headache, or a stomach ache. The brain attaches those interpretations – ‘head’, ‘stomach’ and ‘up there’ – to events that are in fact within the brain itself. Our sense organs themselves, and all the interpretations that we consciously and unconsciously attach to their outputs, are notoriously fallible – as witness the celestial-sphere theory, as well as every optical illusion and conjuring trick. So we perceive nothing as what it really is. It is all theoretical interpretation: *conjecture*. ## A Basic Example Imagine I show you a plot with data scattered about in some sort of intricate pattern related to trading in energy markets. Without background knowledge of these markets, their dynamics, and the data being shown, you may have no way of interpreting this evidence (where evidence is just an observation). However, I may have a very different interpretation given my background. This idea of background knowledge is just a "theory" that I have about the way the world (in this case the energy markets at play) works. The key idea here is that, given different "theories" (background knowledge), the same observation can be interpreted in two different ways. Notice that the same physical process of information transfer is occurring when both you and I look at the plot on the screen. The screen is composed of pixels arranged in such a way to represent data making up the plot. Photons emanate out from the screen surface, encoding visual information as patterns of electromagnetic radiation. As these photons journey towards our eyes, they carry with them encoded information of the plot's visual structure. They will reach our cornea, where they are refracted, pass through the lens, which further focuses them onto the retina at the back of our eyes. Our retinas are complex biological sensors that will trigger photochemical reactions that convert light into electrical signals. These electrical impulses are not merely raw data; intricate neural circuits in the retina will begin the task of edge detection, contrast enhancement, and so on. This information is transmitted via our optic nerve as a series of action potentials to various processing centers of our brain. Up until this point, both you and I have had effectively the same physical processes playing out. But now, we diverge. In our visual cortex, the signals undergo higher level processing. The brain deciphers patterns, recognizing axes, curves, and data points. Our neocortex will attempt to integrate this information into any explanatory frameworks it has. From there, the plot may be surprising, boring, unexpected, interesting, and so on. But this is because, physically, you and I may have had *different knowledge* stored in our brains. And given these, will very likely end up with different views on what this plot means. ## A Subtler Example That example was quite extreme. It felt extreme because the result was I had a strong interpretation of the observation and you had no interpretation (e.g. the null interpretation). Now let's consider a scenario where we have *different* but non null interpretations. Imagine a door that is shut. You go to open the door and it won't open. Where you come from doors do not have locks. I on the other hand come from a place where locks are on all doors. We both observe the same thing: a door that won't open. But our interpretation of this observation is quite different. You interpret that it is jammed and we need to apply more force to pry it open. Meanwhile, I interpret that the door is locked and maybe we aren't supposed to go inside. The same observation, but very different interpretations. Imagine that we "ran an experiment" of running around trying to open all doors in the town. We find that 90% won't open. Well, given our preexisting theories we may interpret that: * These doors are poorly made and constantly jammed. We may need a new contractor going forward. * This is a town where people are worried about having there things stolen ## Big Idea The big idea here is that all observations occur with some sort of *context* associated with them. It is impossible to have an observation free of any sort of outside context. --- Date: 20240622 Links to: [Beginning of Infinity](Beginning%20of%20Infinity.md) [Observations are not Sources of Knowledge](Observations%20are%20not%20Sources%20of%20Knowledge.md) [Fabric of Reality](Fabric%20of%20Reality.md) Tags: References: * []()