| donathos said: @ appolose If any belief (illegitimate & legitimate, whatever we take those terms to mean) can be "consistent with sense data," then would it be fair to state your view this way?: Belief is completely independent from sense data. (or) Sense data leads to no particular belief. (or) Sense data does not "argue" for any particular interpretation. (or) There is no connection between sense data and belief.
Or, if those are unsatisfactory formulations, what do you believe is the relationship between sense data and belief? |
I'd love to say a simple yes to the but I always feel their some ambiguity to avoid. Although that third one you posed seems more clear on that than the others: "Sense data does not 'argue' for any particular interpretation".
Clarifying further: Sense data is certainly knowledge but we can admit it comes in distinct separate little bits to us (various areas of colors, sounds, etc.) which we attempt to interpret to be, say, a whole object. As I also am able to confess an array of possible interpretations for any moment of sense data it follows to say that, yes, those bits of sense data don't 'argue' for any interpretation. They just... "stare me in the face" and leave me with all my equally possible interpretations.
We'll need a different method of truth if we want to know anything more about the world than the sense data received. Sense data doesn't offer anything more than itself (a blaze of colors and sounds with no inherent objects/relationships).
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
