Is an inference more reliable than an observation?

Question

An inference is an interpretation based on prior knowledge and experience. An observation uses your senses.

Answer 1

Of course not!!!

An observation is a direct gain of the facts by seeing or measuring events. Nothing can be more reliable than direct observation.

An inference, done skillfully, can be quite useful, but is never quite as sure a thing.

Answer 2

Inference is one more step removed from reality and so has to be considered less reliable than direct observation, all other things being equal. Of course, an inference based on many years of data is apt to be more reliable than a single observation. You also have to be careful in determining what you know for sure about the observation - there is always a chain of inferences and assumptions about the what and how of the observation.

Inference is useful in science largely because there are many things that can't be directly observed - the core of the Earth, for example.

Answer 3

This is a philosophy question. It depends on what the basis for you inference is.

If that basis for your inference was built logically via axioms and lemmas, the inference is more reliable. This is the same format as a math proof.

If that basis was not built logically, then it's observation + other stuff. This means it's just as dependant on observation as observation is, and has additional dependencies which could be additional sources of error. This makes less reliable than observation alone.

The key here is the validity of the prior knowledge and experience.

Answer 4

I can see what you are saying - that it is harder to fool a lifetime of knowledge and experience than it is to fool your senses.

However, I think by their natures that an inference MUST in general be less reliable than an observation.

Basically, an inference is a guess about something that can not be observed. An observation is a primary source, and an inference is always less than that.

We can observe the variety of life that is around us. The inferences that we draw, about how that variety arose, are many and widely different. The observation is concrete, but the inferences are abstract.

Answer 5

Well, with an inference--that is similar to a conclusion based on your prior knowledge and the observation. An observation doesn't have any opinion attached to it. It's simply an observation and would be more reliable in that it doesn't have someone's opinion or thoughts attached to it.

Answer 6

This is a tough question. You always want to trust your senses but prior knowledge and experience can out weigh them. I guess the situation plays a big factor. For instance, if your considering the personality or attitude of a person than go with your senses. Don't base past relationships on new ones. Everyone deserves a chance even if you have had bad experiences in the past. Does that make sense??

Answer 7

Inference,work out from evidence.
Observe,is to see notice,watch,act according to law.
Observation,action or habit of observing,remark.
English dictionary;Basically very different meanings of the 2 words.

Answer 8

Well then duhh. That answer is easy. Inference is more reliable. You have already expirienced it. Think like this: You see people go on this really big roller coaster and you know what will happen when they get to the top and you know all the loops and turns BUT with an inference you have EXPIRIENCED it and you know how it feels to be on that roller coaster, rather than just seeing it you were on it! got it? get it? good!

Answer 9

An remark can come from many distinctive senses. An inference comes from the recommendations. remark is (or could desire to be) purpose, mutually as inference is opinion based. remark is greater solid through fact it does contain own effect.

Answer 10

observation is more reliable if the methods used are correct.inference is not reliable in most circumstances compared to observations