The subject of essay is “There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball” . These are words of N. R. Hanson. and I’ll try to demo here my point of position. In his work “Observation” Hanson says that if two different people ( for illustration. microbiologists ) . expression at prepared slide. they give different replies for inquiry what did they see at that place. It means. they see the same object. but their feelings and apprehension of object. every bit good their definitions sing it are different. Hanson gives the following reply: ” ‘These are different readings of what all perceivers see in common.
Retinal reactions to figure are virtually indistinguishable ; so excessively are our ocular sense-data. since our drawings of what we see will hold the same content. There is no topographic point in the visual perception for these differences. so they must lie in the readings put on what we see. ” ( Hanson. p. 9 ) So. everything depends on readings of the object – the features are given by us. while seeing the same by different people. Let’s take a image and will seek to happen out what can be seen at that place. Again. some people can see merely birds – they see an opened bick of some large bird. the others see horns and antelope.
Another inquiry: make the people. who have ne’er seen antelope. see an antelope in this image? We can see the image as one form. so as of another. We interpret it and see it as we interpret it. ( Hanson. p. 7 ) Another thought which Hanson gives is that this sort of reading depends on experience. So let’s return as illustration the image of an X-ray tubing viewed from the cathode. Some experient physicist will acknowledge here an X-ray tubing. but a little babe and a driver. for illustration. will hold another reading based on their ocular experience.
They see the same object. but have different readings. Hanson says: ” Seeing is non merely the holding of a ocular experience ; it is besides the manner in which the ocular experience is had” . ( Hanson. p. 8 ) . A physicist proverb this object in school. but from his ocular experience he saw merely an instrument made of metal and glass. When he studied at the university. he learned about this instrument and saw the building in the book and had wholly another reading. The object didn’t alteration. but the ocular experience did.
So. in order for driver to see the same what physicist sees. he needs to larn natural philosophies. The babe is blind to what driver sees. although he is non unsighted and sees the same object. Sing agencies besides some sort “to have knowledge of certain sorts” ( Hanson. p. 11 ) . Let’s take another scientist. Choping. with his article “Do we see through a microscope? ” He speaks about the ways we get new sorts of perceptual experience when we use different objects to pull strings a universe we can non see by our normal eye-sight.
Hacking says that “we don’t see through a microscope. we see with a microscope” . For illustration. we can utilize negatrons in order to acquire other consequences. and by making this. we are convinced of their being with their stable belongingss. It doesn’t average that we have an full cognition sing those negatrons. but we have those belongingss as known because of our experience. Here comes the motto: ” If you can pull strings them. they must be existent. ” ( I. Hacking. p. 150 ) . So. truly. we can do a decision that “There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball” .