Scientists obtain a great deal of the evidence they use by observing natural and experimentally generated objects and effects. Much of the standard philosophical literature on this subject comes from 20th century logical empiricists, their followers, and critics who embraced their issues and accepted some of their assumptions even as they objected to specific views. Their discussions of observational evidence tend to focus on epistemological questions about its role in theory testing. This entry follows their lead even though observational evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems.
The issues that get the most attention in the standard philosophical literature on observation and theory have to do with the distinction between observables and unobservables, the form and content of observation reports, and the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate.
The
response is false. Evolutively, thought is the last to develop,
therefore, it is the most plausible element to be modified and, in
this process of change, emotions<span> will accompany.</span>
<em>In the lungs, the blood receives oxygen then leaves through the pulmonary veins. It returns to the heart and enters the left </em><em>atrium</em><em>.</em>
