What the bleep do we know?

First off the title is meant as a joke, so no attacking me please :P

Being relatively new to Oism (2 years), and philosophy in general, I still have to explore the full scope of the epistomology. I've started my academic journey into philosophy, to learn the methods of arguing and the history.

My question is this: how do I know what I know? I have to accept certain guidelines to know I know what I know. Existence exists, trust in sensory perceptions, etc. Beyond that, how can I know, for example, my sensory perceptions are correct? If I have some sort of defect in my perceptions, wouldn't it then be possible to objectively askew reality?

Post 1

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 5:29pm

Briefly, this is a matter of burden of proof. If you saw it or heard it, you need specific evidence, not just idle speculation, that something was wrong with your perception.

An Objectivist would say that this kind of skepticism is an instance of the stolen concept - of denying something up front while tacitly conceding it. To show that someone's perceptions are off in a particular case, you have to bring evidence. That evidence is, perforce, some knowledge or other that came ultimately from perception, and you have to acknowledge this to argue that somebody has misperceived. Branden used to use the example of a ruler that looks bent when it's partially underwater when in fact it's straight. A skeptic might use this as evidence of the unreliability of the senses, but to show its real shape he'd have to look at it.

Peter

Post 2

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 6:15pm

A skeptic might use this as evidence of the unreliability of the senses, but to show its real shape he'd have to look at it.

This I follow, and I believe is an axiom? What about a skeptic that looks at the ruler, underwater or above, and refuses to recognize its shape? Is this just a denial of reality? These are the people I wind up talking to and they drive me nuts. I should probably just avoid engaging them.

Post 3

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 6:35pm

Donald said:

If I have some sort of defect in my perceptions, wouldn't it then be possible to objectively askew reality?

If your senses are damaged you can make errors in your perception of reality, however, reality remains unchanged.

Ethan

Post 4

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 7:26pm

No matter how damaged or unreliable your senses are, surely they are providing some sort of information about reality. Can you use information from your senses to help you make decisions?

Post 5

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 7:30pm

You have no choice - your senses are your 'lifeline' to reality, just as they are to every living organism which possess them.

Post 6

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 8:06pm

Donald-

What about a skeptic that looks at the ruler, underwater or above

Unless I misunderstand you, I think what you are referring to is that a ruler, when partially submerged in a glass of water looks 'broken', or disjointed so to speak. When people try and use this example to discredit the senses, they fail to see two things: (1)It is only though further appeals to the senses that we know why this is so-due to the velocity of light being different for the two mediums it's travelling through and (2) our senses really are not deceiving us at all, but are instead dead accurate in their registering of what is going on.

I hope I did not misunderstand you, and that this at least answers a small part of your questions.

Post 7

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 6:50am

Jody point makes me wonder what counts as a sensory screw up. Maybe optical illusions, or hallucinations? Does what happens to your eyes in this picture http://photos32.flickr.com/37017144_072d69c441_o.gif count as a sensory screw up? Maybe color blindness? Maybe something out of Oliver Sacks' Anthropologist on Mars?

Jordan

Post 8

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 10:35am

I didn't intend for this to become a discussion about sensory failures/misinterpretations, but I am glad it did!

Here is another one. First time I did this I jumped in my seat.
http://www.digitalxpression.co.uk/dwheel.swf

Jody, you did not misunderstand at all. What I am still trying to figure out though is this: how to "prove" we know anything?
For another example, take into account the Hindu concept of Maya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
Theoretically, if the idea of Maya were true, existence exists, yet there is another inaccessible plane. I know this is mysticism and requires faith, but the idea of it has my interest right now.

I had a co-worker who was heavily into Hinduism, most prominently Sai Baba. He even visited Sai Baba who "manifested" a gift for him. Is it possible to engage someone who believes this kind of hocus-pocus rationally? I haven't found a way, just curious if there is one.

(Edited by Donald Talton on 8/28, 10:37am)

(Edited by Donald Talton on 8/28, 10:37am)

Post 9

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 12:55pm

Donald,

Is it possible to engage someone who believes this kind of hocus-pocus rationally?

It's possible. The question is whether it's worth it. Just treat his claim like you would treat any other. Ask him why he believes X. Because he feels like it? Because the Baghavadkita says so? Ask him if he thinks feelings and books saying so (or whatever) is a valid justification for believing other things. If he mentions any, ask him why those and not others, then ask him why he things X falls into the former category.

Anyway, if you want to know how we know something, if anything, well, that's what epistemology is all about. It's not something easily summed up in a thread.

Jordan

Post 10

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:09pm