perception and evidence: forum for week of 10 Oct

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.