Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standard philosophical discussions of theory-ladeness assume that observational evidence consists of perceptual outputs (or reports of such outputs) that are sentential or propositional in structure. Theory-ladeness is conceptualized as having to do with logical or semantical relationships between such outputs or reports and background theories held by observers. Using the recent debate between Fodor and Churchland as a point of departure, we propose an alternative picture in which much of what serves as evidence in science is not perceptual outputs or reports of such outputs and is not sentential in structure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jim Woodward (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: