perception and evidence: forum for week of 10 Oct

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).