| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Is to observe the same as to interpret?Question: Is to observe the same as to interpret!? Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Oh, no!. Observation is to collect data!. Interpretation is what you do to make sense out of the data!. If I observe a play (for example), I'm trying to follow the plot, the characterizations, and to scope out the technical aspects (the lighting, set, costumes, makeup, etc!.)!. If I interpret a play, I try to derive all possible meanings from it!. Some of those meanings might be personal and idiosyncratic, others might derive directly from the script and the performance!. For example, when I watch "Angels in America: The Millenium Approaches" by Tony Kushner at the Human Race Theater Company, I'm observing that the set is remarkably designed and the crew does scene changes like clockwork; the actors are remarkable in their rendition of their characters; the story lines converge in intriguing ways!. After observation, I can interpret!. The play has a decidedly pro-homosexual, anti-right-wing sentiment!. It's particularly tough on Mormons and on Roy Cohn!. There's an undercurrent of self-loathing in most of the characters!. There's a supernatural overlay that suggests that the author is a theist!. And so forth!.Www@QuestionHome@Com You observe and after you observe something you interpret it!. It is like reading and analyzing, you read something and after you analyze it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com no observe means to look or watch interpret means to to explain or tell the meaning ofWww@QuestionHome@Com Yes, but to determine whether your observation and interpretation are correct you must put it through the scientific process!.Www@QuestionHome@Com You observe by watching, what you make of what you see is the interpreting part!. So no, they are not the same!. -SWww@QuestionHome@Com Nope!. I could observe you having sex with a man, and I would be called a pervert!. I could interpret you having sex with a man, and I would be considered an artist!Www@QuestionHome@Com No!. Different functions of the mind!.Www@QuestionHome@Com i suppose its possible for someone somewhere to observe and draw no conclusion or inference whatsoever!. but i'm sure it's so rare, that it's not really worth talking aboutWww@QuestionHome@Com In a sense, yes!. Your eyes, ears, sense of smell, etc!. will interpret something you are observing!. Take an illusion for instance!.!.!. If you don't know it's an illusion and you observe it "objectively", you will be tricked into thinking it is "this" when in reality, it is "that" because that's your interpretation of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Not even close!. Observation is only seeing!. Interpreting is to ingest what one sees (or hears or reads) and make sense of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com NO!. To observe is to see/witness something without jumping to conclutions!. If you Interperate something, you're jumping to a conclution using logical/coherent observations!. So, i guess interpreting is obsevating but obsevation is NOT interperating!Www@QuestionHome@Com To the extent that recognition is cognition!.Www@QuestionHome@Com interpreting is something you do after observing!. you just can't interpret something right away!. it takes time and observation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com To observe is passive To interpret is active!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No!. But no meaningful intrepretation can take place without observation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com To interpret something you need to observe it first!. But to observe something you do NOT need to interpret it first!.Www@QuestionHome@Com yes, in a way they are the same!. the actions are different by definition but you really can't do one without the other!. one who observes but doesn't interpret might as well be dead, and one who interprets but does not observe is blind to reality!. seeing is believing, but we must not simply believe what we seeWww@QuestionHome@Com no!. when you observe it, you are visually perceiving it!. to interpret means to address what you have just seen and make a value judgement !.Www@QuestionHome@Com No, observation is objective!. You may interpret *as* you observe, but it's really about taking in details that are purely facts, and the interpretation is secondary!.Www@QuestionHome@Com to observe you are looking for details that might help form the interpretation!. Observation makes interpretation possible!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No!. To observe is to collect data!. To interpret is to try to make sense out of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com no observe is to be passive and interpret is to be activeWww@QuestionHome@Com to observe, is to look at or watch, to interpret is to give a judgement or opinion, except in the matter of literal translation, or commonly used explanations!.Www@QuestionHome@Com If you observe without the observer it won't be interpreted, but then there won't be any "you" to witness the observation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No!. When observing, one is taking in!. The interpretation takes the received information and makes sense of it, or comes to a conclusion/opinion on it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The short answer is no!. To observe is simply that!. Interpretation of an observation is quite different!. Observation is quite simple; interpretation is quite complex!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No! Interpretation is an effect, observation is it's cause!.Www@QuestionHome@Com nope to oberve is basically to look then do the tallying, summarize from what you see interpret means you need to have skills like for language to be able to make liason between two parties to make sense of what they are talking about, which is merely not observingWww@QuestionHome@Com observe is to see interpret is to explaneWww@QuestionHome@Com Ideally observation is without interpretation but in practice all observation involves some interpretation!. In science we try to minimize the extent of interpretation of data!. Once we interpret our source data and rearrange it or interpret it it may se seen as "processed information" instead of "pure data"!.Www@QuestionHome@Com noWww@QuestionHome@Com |