Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Scientific Observation

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default Scientific Observation

    Is it more focused on Se or Si.

    By observation I mean sensory observation in the lab, and not more intuitive and theoretical notions of science that are built off of these sensory based observations.

  2. #2
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Is it more focused on Se or Si.

    By observation I mean sensory observation in the lab, and not more intuitive and theoretical notions of science that are built off of these sensory based observations.
    Wouldn't it depend on what was being observed?
    If observing the external properties of an object/person, then Se.
    If observing the external transitions and sensory changes going on, then Si.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  3. #3
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Wouldn't it depend on what was being observed?
    If observing the external properties of an object/person, then Se.
    If observing the external transitions and sensory changes going on, then Si.
    Do you have any experience in lab observation or science?

    It's very well organized the way science is divided up... there is usually "theory, pen and paper, and calculation" and then there is usually "lab, observation, technical instruments, statistics". Usually these are the two division that are made.

    For example their are "theoretical physicists" and "experimental physicists"... Einstein for example is renowned for being a theorist, taking results from other peoples experiments and playing out "thought experiments in his head" until he could conceptualize a proper understanding of the subject. In fact the way he did this was brilliant, relativity for all it's weirdness was the result of a single observed principle in the lab, upon which Einstein divined the principles of relativity through a series of complex thought experiments... he built a whole new system of physics with radical implication merely from a single observation that almost the entire scientific community overlooked. When it was tested by experimentalists, his predictions were true! Einstein is on the extreme of being a theorist.

    An experimentalist is someone who observes nature, makes detailed notes on it, records statics and data using technical instruments, and so forth.

    Science is the marriage between these two elements. I'd suggesting watching a couple of documentaries on the history of scientific discovery, and this will easily be seen.

    I find usually the lab element is more sensory in nature, whilst the theory element is more intuitive in nature.

    I was wondering though... how Se/Si played into the lab element, because perhaps a paradigm shift in certain types of scientific observation could yield a radical new wave of thinking. Maybe not... but I'm curious on what people think of it. How the elements come into play in the lab environment.

  4. #4
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah, ok, I misunderstood the question then.
    I hope you get good replys.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  5. #5
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Galileo was known for experimenting quite a bit, and he's in all probability ILE. Although, I think in general, for ILEs the theory (or hunch) comes before the experiment designed to prove or disprove it. We're just that much worse at inducing from a set of results than making deductive leaps.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  6. #6
    Creepy-cinq

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    It's very well organized the way science is divided up... there is usually "theory, pen and paper, and calculation" and then there is usually "lab, observation, technical instruments, statistics". Usually these are the two division that are made.

    An experimentalist is someone who observes nature, makes detailed notes on it, records statics and data using technical instruments, and so forth.

    I find usually the lab element is more sensory in nature, whilst the theory element is more intuitive in nature.

    I was wondering though... how Se/Si played into the lab element, because perhaps a paradigm shift in certain types of scientific observation could yield a radical new wave of thinking. Maybe not... but I'm curious on what people think of it. How the elements come into play in the lab environment.
    One the surface, the lab element is more sensory in nature. It requires good observational skills, accuracy and a methodical approach to the work. It also requires the ability to understand theory behind the lab work. Theories can be complex and abstract. So, it requires some amount of intuition to see and understand the connections beyond the concrete, and the ability to utilize the theories in experiments.

    I'm thinking experimentalists can be divided into two other categories - creative experimentalists and conventional experimentalists (for lack of a better term). Creative experimentalists (most likely intuitive) would take the known theory beyond its boundaries in a lab environment and possibly invent a new concept or method. Conventional experimentalists (most likely sensors) work within known concepts and methods. The majority are latter and the lab environment appeals to them because of the instrumentation and methodical approach required. I think in some lab environments, the creative experimentalists have already created paradigm shifts. Some have been adopted, and others won't be accepted until much later. Most we just don't hear about because most of the population doesn't really care.

    On a personal note, my husband, a sensor, has a degree in Chemistry and a masters in Biochemistry. He was offered a doctoralship but turned it down as he was fully aware of his limitations. He was extremely competent in this field, worked on aging of human cells and research on leukemia. However, he fully admits he was not creative type.

    Well, i think an entire chapter can be written about this, as it much depends on the type of lab environment and subject matter. It would be interesting to further assess type against lab environment and topic.

  7. #7
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cinq View Post
    One the surface, the lab element is more sensory in nature. It requires good observational skills, accuracy and a methodical approach to the work. It also requires the ability to understand theory behind the lab work. Theories can be complex and abstract. So, it requires some amount of intuition to see and understand the connections beyond the concrete, and the ability to utilize the theories in experiments.
    I remember my frustration with the laboratory aspects of biology and chemistry. I did really well with the theory, and I could predict well what would happen but I had trouble getting the experiments to work properly.
    I was a klutz in the lab, who frequently spilled stuff and broke glassware. I found it very tedious the level of observation and accuracy and methodicalness needed.

    So when I did labs, I ended 'fudging' the data alot so to speak and got A's on lab reports in spite of myself.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  8. #8
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cinq View Post
    Creative experimentalists (most likely intuitive) would take the known theory beyond its boundaries in a lab environment and possibly invent a new concept or method. Conventional experimentalists (most likely sensors) work within known concepts and methods.
    Yea, but there have been a lot sensors who I think contributed to science... they made observations in the lab or in nature and later intuitive took this information and develop scientific concepts from this.

    One example of this I think of is tycho brahe and johann kepler in developing the motion of the planets. Tycho was a rich dutch nobleman who had a star viewing room built and he would stare at the sky and record the motion of stars... he was rich, lived large and had parties, but didn't have the skills to analyze the motion. Kepler was a pious scholarly melancholy sort of fellow, that was taken in by Tycho after he retreated from his town due to religious persecution, and was kept from seeing the data because Tycho was envious of Kepler and wanted the glory for discovering something scientifically. Upon Tycho's death, he handed the records off to Kepler, who discovered the equations for the precise motion of the planets.... which was later solved out analytically by newton using newtonian physics. Those equations led to the study of astrodynamics and gives humans the ability to travel to the stars and track the motion of comets and other objects in space. They were a major milestone in humanities advancement outside of earth, along with german rocket technology, and goddard's research into rockets.

    Quote Originally Posted by cinq View Post
    Most we just don't hear about because most of the population doesn't really care.
    True, most of the world brushes against science in school and with documentaries on PBS. Science really has an awful awful awful image.... just horrible really, its not good at all.

    To me I've always seen it in more ancient contexts... like fire being an element... early on man was incapable of shaping fire to his will... but because of science we can create fire and use it like a tool, rather than it just being an element in nature.

    Particle physicists basically use particle accelerators to use fundamental particles like tools... they can build new elements that have never been created, or produce fusion reaction that are usually in the sun... creating a miniature sun.

    Then consider chemical compounds like carbon nanotubes.... your talking about building infrastructure at the molecular level. Creating an entire city with skyscrapers in something the size of a drop of water.

    To me that seems cool, and then you have aerospace... traveling to the stars, building infrastructure in orbit, harvesting materials from asteroids and energy from the sun, and discovering new life and uninhabited worlds.

    Science is like an Ne-paradise of new possibilities and horizons, utilizing elements in nature like tools, and finding elaborate worlds in the extremely small and large.

    Now lets take a step back and look at bill nye and picture our high school science teacher..... did something inside of you just die? I think it did for me.....

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I remember my frustration with the laboratory aspects of biology and chemistry. I did really well with the theory, and I could predict well what would happen but I had trouble getting the experiments to work properly.
    I was a klutz in the lab, who frequently spilled stuff and broke glassware. I found it very tedious the level of observation and accuracy and methodicalness needed.

    So when I did labs, I ended 'fudging' the data alot so to speak and got A's on lab reports in spite of myself.
    Lol usually in lab groups I was the "theory guy", I'd do all the calculations and I'd have everything predicted on how it should be before we did it.... however recently I had to take a chem II class and an electronics class and work solo, and I found I actually enjoyed doing the sensory aspect myself. I seem probably very ISTj in the way I did things... I'd lay out all my equipment ahead of time like a surgeon having their operating tools out on a table and perform the experiment very methodically. I know that sounds creepy... but its the nature of scientific work... the more exact and methodical you are with your work, the stronger and more accurate the results come out. In electronics I'd build the circuit like the diagram and used colored wires for different things... green would run to ground, red input power, yellow out line, and gray to connect elements in between. I actually like a lot of hands on mechanical stuff, my dad, an ISTp, is extremely mechanical and I'm always fascinated when he takes apart things.

  9. #9
    Creepy-cinq

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I remember my frustration with the laboratory aspects of biology and chemistry. I did really well with the theory, and I could predict well what would happen but I had trouble getting the experiments to work properly.
    I was a klutz in the lab, who frequently spilled stuff and broke glassware. I found it very tedious the level of observation and accuracy and methodicalness needed.

    So when I did labs, I ended 'fudging' the data alot so to speak and got A's on lab reports in spite of myself.
    lol. I was a klutz and found it tedious as well. Mind you, I did better in the labs than the theory courses. I found studying the theory to be a bit mind numbing, in some cases, as it required a fair amount of memorization of details (thinking biology here).

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Yea, but there have been a lot sensors who I think contributed to science... they made observations in the lab or in nature and later intuitive took this information and develop scientific concepts from this.
    There is no doubt - alot of sensors contribute to science. In fact, I would speculate sensors with strong intuition faculties are fine contributors/inventors of theories or new methodologies. Conversely, intuitors with strong sensing faculties make excellent contributions without having actually contributing anything new.

    I see strengths in sensing/intuition on a spectrum - it's not absolute. There are obvious preferences and tendencies though. It's most likely an intuitor, as you say, that will look at the information identify patterns or potential, and develop a new concept/theory.

    True, most of the world brushes against science in school and with documentaries on PBS. Science really has an awful awful awful image.... just horrible really, its not good at all.
    I'm not sure I would go as far as saying science has an awful image. However, there are problems - some being created by scientists themselves. It's not strictly media or curriculum applying broad strokes to a scientific topic.

    Science is like an Ne-paradise of new possibilities and horizons, utilizing elements in nature like tools, and finding elaborate worlds in the extremely small and large.
    Agreed.

  10. #10
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  11. #11
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Absolutely nothing to do with Se.

    Its actually most related to Te because in science the focus is on articulating what one sees in technical language rather than acting on the sense data in a direct, immediately involved way.

    Ti is about theorizing without concrete data to rely on; increasing the volume of the theory without expanding its empirical foundation.

  12. #12
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •