perception and evidence: forum for week of 10 Oct

Mo: Empiricists have a theory of how perception works, that it gives pure unprejudiced data.  But that's wrong.  Perception is just loaded with our prejudices and opinions. So there's no reason why we should worship it as evidence that settles all issues.  
Shmo  No no no.  You can be some sort of an empiricist without having that theory of perception.  You just have to think that slowly, by appeal to experimental evidence, we can root out the prejudices and see which opinions actually stand up.
Mo:  Why think that this will succeed?  If you appeal to experimental evidence that is shaped by some assumption, it just gets more and more convincing, even if it is completely wrong.
Shmo:  Nature has a way of giving evidence that cuts through the firmest convictions.  If a belief is wrong sooner or later one of its predictions is just obviously false, even to the most prejudiced perception.  
Mo:  Those are your prejudices.  Just give me a reason.  

Join in, on either side..

I agree with Shmo's side of the argument. Admittedly the empiricist's epistemic ideals are out of reach for human beings, (due mostly to Mo's first statement), but that is no reason to abandon perception as evidence. Despite reports from experiments where human beings seem to show that their perceptual beliefs can be prejudiced, or that we can be tricked, if we are determined to bring into question one of our beliefs we do not usually fall into such traps as we repeat our observations more carefully, as in the scientific method and draw conclusions in which we can have more confidence.

I also agree with Shmo. I think at even if you appeal to experimental evidence, it is not based off of one result or observation. Rather, it is through multiple results which we begin to strengthen our assumption.

Mo does have a point that some of our perception is loaded with prejudice and opinions. Social engineering plays a large part in what we do. If someone teaches a young child that black is an evil colour and white is a good colour. That child will grow up with that belief and may even block out all other beliefs because the child was taught at an early age and doesn't refute it. Then during a trial where the child, now a grown man, is one of the jurors, proposes the verdict of guilty on the black person which was based on evidence that the person was taught that black was an evil colour.

Hello

Both Mo and Shmo make valid points. I think that how we perceive is related to our general ideas and experiences, which have caused us to learn about our environment over time. We take in the raw sense data and combine it with our background beliefs to interpret what we are experiencing and create a perception (often subconsciously). Because of this, Mo would say that perception is not an ideal source of evidence. However, as Shmo states, we can avoid this by heightened attention to our perceptions and how they relate to our prejudices. For example if we are extremely careful with our perceptions, over time we can increase our ability to gain unbiased evidence. A scientist is generally better han the average person at observing things such as experimental data in an unbiased way because he has learned to over time. However it is extremely difficult to be attentive and careful enough to get proper perception all the time. Therefore perception still may not be the best source of evidence because it is labour intensive to do correctly. It may not be the best source, but I still think it can be used as a source of evidence.

Shmo: Nature has a way of giving evidence that cuts through the firmest convictions. If a belief is wrong sooner or later one of its predictions is just obviously false, even to the most prejudiced perception.

The problem is the "later" I find. If this later doesn't show up for hundreds of years, maybe thousands, it will have been rooted so deeply in the human mind that it will be too hard to uproot it

I agree that empiricism has flaws. Yet, I don't think that we should bow the knee to the skeptics and say they have won. I do believe that this cycle of back and forth happens all the time throughout history and at this juncture the skeptic seems to have an upper hand. Still, I wold say and believe that some how and some way that, rational methods can still be used for gaining knowledge and truth in order to lull the critics accusations that we can't KNOW anything But that is something to be worked out.

I think that both Mo and Shmo raise valid arguments. However, I believe that Shmo's position is a better one, as it provides a more reasonable, logical, and positive view for the future. I see the optimism in his ability to claim that we can weed out personal biases and beliefs in our perceptions. I too argue that we are capable of doing this. It would probably take a good bit of time, but it is definitely possible. Once we can perceive things from an unbiased viewpoint, we can experiment very accurately and precisely.

I agree with Mo because Shmo sounds like schmuck and I make it a habit not to believe what schmucks say.

On the side of Mo, I would like to include an effect of evolution to the perception of data, as it applies to Australian jewel beetles. Google via: Discoverers of Beetle Sex with Beer Bottles. In a 1983 paper titled Beetles on the Bottle: Male Buprestids Mistake Stubbies for Females, biology professor Darryll Gwynne of the University of Toronto, and co-author David Rentz of Kuranda, Australia identified male jewell beetles attempting to mate with beer bootles. The mating errors have to do with the brown colour of the beer bottle, and turbercles at the bottom of the bottle to help a person grip the bottle. The turbercles reflect light in a similar way as the brown wing covers of the female jewell beetle. A September 29, 2011 Q&A internet article claims the male jewell beetles have evolved over millions of years to prefer the largest brown female they can find because the bigger females have more eggs. In this case, evolution appears to have prejudiced the male jewell beetles' perception of the data.

Mo schmo…

Some time ago a man who many people think of as one of the greatest thinkers of all time endeavored to restructure his entire knowledge/belief base by asking what he could prove and still he arrived at the conclusion that God exists.

Descartes’ plan was to question everything and in doing so he believed he would arrive at only true beliefs. Doubt everything was the idea he started with. Everything but the existence of God that is because when he broke down all his knowledge and questioned everything his perception told him (as perception is merely the brains interpretation of external stimuli which we cannot know anything about beyond what our brain constructs) he still found God – because he perceived that there was something more perfect than himself. His problem here is in his idea of perfect. He talks of being deceived but says that God would not deceive him but says that God is perfect because he is infinite. However, to be infinite God must have everything that exists within him and deception being a thing which was already discussed and therefore in existence must also be a quality of God. Logic failed Descartes because the belief in God was so strong that it was rooted in his very perception of the world. Beliefs and biases are like this – if you believe strongly enough in something you will always find evidence for it. Furthermore, you will always deny anything which refutes your belief or attempt to explain it in a way which can work within your belief structure.

Schmo, as admirable as his stance is, really is a schmuck. He said, “Nature has a way of giving evidence that cuts through the firmest convictions.” This is his best argument and is complete and utter tripe. I personally know people who live surrounded by people who do nothing but use and abuse each other yet they continue to hold to the belief that humans are universally good at heart. Having this belief about humanity they will find any explanation they can for the actions of those around them. I am not saying people are naturally evil, only pointing out that there are people who hold to beliefs despite being surrounded by evidence to the contrary rendering Schmo the schmuck’s statement wrong. The “most prejudiced perception” will always find excuses for contradictory events or evidence which are either explained by their beliefs or biases or, at the very least, up hold them. Such as the invocation of something being “God’s plan” when asked why a supposedly good God allows bad things to occur.

Though I’d defend Mo’s side in this I wouldn’t fully agree with Mo either. True our perceptions can never be free of prejudice. And I am saying this as a person who has tried to shed himself of all biases and look at the world as logically as possible. Most of our beliefs are things which we take for granted and do not know they are there. That’s the thing about cultural views and beliefs; they are so common we barely know we have them. No matter how hard we try we will not be able to arrive at incontestable truth through our perceptions – not as individuals anyway. But when many people have the same perception then we can start to believe in something as really being a real description of the real world. Scientific evidence in support of a theory, for example, isn’t presented by one person based on their perceptions and then become accepted as fact. Findings must be first be verified by other scientists repeating the experiments and arriving at the same conclusions. When perceptions of a thing are in agreement among many people who perceive the thing then I think it is safe to take it as “evidence that settles all issues” concerning at least that thing. Therefore, knowledge cannot be attained by a personal search by an individual but by a collaborative effort of groups of individuals.

Both Mo and Shmo provide valid points in their argument, however I would have to side with Mo in this argument, if I were to maintain an epistemological standpoint. I agree with Shmo that empiricism is a very efficient way of attaining evidences for knowledge, but biases and prejudices will surely cause many true beliefs that are not knowledge. Mo states that “if you appeal to experimental evidence that is shaped by some assumption, it just gets more and more convincing, even if it is completely wrong.” I believe this statement provides a very valid point by suggesting that each individual is subject to their own biases and these biases will often prohibit them from attaining sound evidence. For instance someone who believes they have seen a UFO or that 9/11 was a conspiracy will often validate their beliefs by searching for other people who share those beliefs. They will remain devote to their beliefs because of their apparent evidences and they will likely avoid critics who may debunk their theories. This is probably a fairly uncommon type of belief attained through empiricism, however the fact that these types of beliefs can be produced by people's biases proves that nature, and society, will not always “cut through our firmest convictions” if the belief or bias is strong enough and the individual refuses to be persuaded otherwise.

I find that Mo is the winner here. From the argument, I can tell that for every reason supporting empiricism Shmo can come up with, Mo can find an argument against it. Whatever Shmo says in defense of empiricism, Mo can argue that "those are merely opinions/prejudices". For example, Shmo says "Nature has a way of giving evidence that cuts through the firmest convictions." The evidence provided by Nature is open to perception, if the perception that provides data can be obscured by prejudice and opinions, why can't the evidence provided by Nature be as well?

I don't agree with Mo, but I guess you can't really completely justify empiricism. However, the results empiricism has provided has evidently benefited mankind.

I think both Mo and Shmo's positions are valid. However, on pragmatic grounds I would agree with Shmo; but more needs to be said by Mo so we can understand his position better. So it is hard to take a side really. It is true that Shmo could just add to his pool of wrong beliefs by weeding out the beliefs that do not help us effectively predict something. But what would Mo have us do instead? I think a human aim should be to get true ideas about the world and ourselves.

But at what price? It seems only that privileged people would really hold a position like skepticism (which I take Mo to be holding; or at least a thin/local version of it). Humans are alive and they will think and act in concert with each other, their environment, their respective pasts and aims for the future, their finite limitations, their body's limitations, and so on. Couldn't we focus more on getting along with each other, and mediating this goal with a search for truth, if there is such a way (if there isn't, wouldn't you say the effort towards this mediation is still worth it?). Scepticism, in short, is philosophical wankery. Bertrand Russell said something along the lines of "skepticism is an entirely tenable philosophy. But it is impossible psychologically" (paraphrase/rough quotation).

Here's Richard Rorty's take on related matters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY AND also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQDYdfuuhAs&feature=related

Sometimes Rorty can be agitating. He once said in a radio interview that we shouldn't tell a child not to stick his hands in a fire because of the temperature of the fire (a scientific explanation), but, instead, we should tell a child that "the community you are a part of suggests you not stick your hands into that fire." Well, a bit too far for me. Science and empirical evidence are very beneficial to us as a species. But this kind of position is an exaggeration of why I would agree with Shmo. Mo's position is untenable for a living, breathing, human being. Shmo's position is certainly not perfect. Empiricism cannot exactly get closer and closer to the truth because prejudices, that is, interpretations via our senses must always be made (we cannot step out of our own bodies to observe the world, can we?). We cannot step outside of sensory perception: Shmo should admit his aims are too idealistic, actually untenable, while Mo should admit he is a human being who must interpret and perceive if he is to survive (if he cannot admit this because he "cannot be certain," well then we should leave Mo to play in the sandbox by himself).

I agree with Mo, because as soon as you perceive something, you apply your prejudices and prior knowledge and assign attributes to whatever it is that you're perceiving. Totally subconsciously or not, it happens, so there's no way that perception can be worshipped as evidence that settles all issues. Although, that is taking empiricism to the extreme, like Shmo says. However, I do not agree that the prejudices can be rooted out. Nature may give evidence, but our senses are flawed, so even if it seems as if said evidence cuts through the firmest of convictions, there are tons of situations where those senses could deceive and whatever evidence is rendered completely invalid, only half-verifiable, or slightly skewed. With either of those, the conclusion still wouldn't be accurate.

We all have the same fundamental beliefs like we are human, fire burns the skin, etc, which have worked for us since the beginning of time. The ones that don't or erroneous beliefs discontinue. Even if our truths aren't true to aliens or other non-human beings, it is OUR truths. These fundamental beliefs, or truths, or perceptions give us the basis for ongoing empirical experiments which make for truths. If we don't go this route then what is the point of seeking any truths? We might as well just lay around and do nothing and be in chaos. That being said, we have to be careful how far we use our perceptions in evidence and what perceptions can actually constitute evidence. How far can the deep skeptic go? Very far, but is it facilitating or debilitating to life?