appolose said:
I'd love to say a simple yes to the but I always feel their some ambiguity to avoid. |
No, no--I'll take accuracy over simplicity every time. :)
|
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). |
Okay. If we grant all of that, then how do you propose we come to the specific interpretations that we do? Also, why does there seem to be such wide agreement in basic interpretations? (Examples like the "piano" pic you'd posted are crafted to ellicit specific interpretations; that craft suggests that the form is purposeful, don't you think?)
I'll understand if your feeling is that, you don't have to determine these things for your general skepticism to stand, but I'm still interested as to what you think about them, given your more fundamental position.
