Is your question whether or not Hanson thinks our observations are theory laden? I can’t answer that for you (since I’ve never read hanson but a quick google search says that he’s one of the strongest supporters of it in the 50s and 60s.
Here’s a general outline for writing a 5pg philosophy paper: 1/2pg intro and 1/2pg conclusion. 3pg of explaining the position you are analyzing, and 1pg offering an objection, or an objection and subsequent counter objection.
Here’s what I would do. Take that explanation you gave and explain it. Take each part of it and argue for it.
To start here’s a syllogism that you’ve kind of laid out:
- Our observations require the use of our mental faculties.
- In order to use our mental faculties we must draw from theories and knowledge that we have
C) Thus our observations are theory laden.
Now, explain the premises thoroughly. Enough so that you feel like you’re over-explaining them.
Here’s an objection you might raise: the argument is circular. It states that we must understand things in order to use our mental faculties when in fact understanding is a mental faculty. In fact, the popular opinion is the opposite, that perception (observation) is the most basic of our mental functions and without perception there can be no understanding, no theories. This should be easy for you to argue for and you should be able to easily fill up at least 1 page on it.