Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Observable/Theoretical Distinction. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 7 page paper which examines and analyzes Grover Mazwell’s essay “Theoretical Entities” and Bas van Fraassen’s text “A Defense of the Observational/Theoretical Distinction.” No additional sources cited.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: JR7_RAthry7.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
theory involves the observable realities of our universe. The following paper examines two particular essays that involve observable/theoretical distinction. The essays are Grover Mazwells essay "Theoretical Entities" and Bas van
Fraassens text "A Defense of the Observational/Theoretical Distinction." Maxwell Without using much of the theoretical terminology used by Maxwell we see that Maxwell is clearly arguing that just because
something is not observable with the human eye does not mean it does not exist in physical form. When Maxwell indicates that the argument of something moving from existence to
non-existence merely because of its observable nature is ridiculous he is stating that these theorists who claim that there is a distinction are ridiculous. Just because there is movement from
observable to non-observable does not mean that there is any proof that something can go from existence to non-existence in terms of being a real object. Maxwell presents the
continuum argument which illustrates that, perhaps in all honesty, we can only observe, for example, that it is raining when we look through a window and only through opening the
window and seeing it without interference can we claim it is raining. While this is true, we know, through our vision, that something is observable and thus it does exist.
He admits that the higher powered the glass through which we are looking, the more vague our observations may be, but he also indicates that it exists nonetheless. In addition
he notes that as that distinction becomes more and more widely spaced the final assumptions will always vary. One of his objections comes in the form of argument addressing
microscopes wherein he states that things through a microscope, though perhaps blurred, are no less real. He supports this through his discussion of using a telescope to view the moon.
...