One argument that came up in class is the following:
- Sense perception is our only source of information about the external world.
- If sense perception were unreliable, then we wouldn’t survive and our species would eventually die out.
- Therefore, the sense perception of the human species that is in existence today (i.e., modern humans or Homo sapiens) is reliable (unreliable sense perception is the exception, not the rule).
This is a tough question. In order to tackle it, I'll approach each premise and think about the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteFirst premise: "Sense perception is our only source of information about the external world."
This makes sense. We see, hear, smell, feel, and taste the world around us. This is how we interact with it. If your had no sense perception, you could not interact with your environment. Even Helen Keller, who could not see or hear, experienced the world through her other three senses and communicated through touch. This is a valid premise.
Second premise: "If sense perception were unreliable, then we wouldn’t survive and our species would eventually die out."
This is where the argument becomes a bit more tricky. This second premise is not really a fact, but rather an argument. Just because sense perception is our link to experiencing and communicating with our surroundings, that does not mean it is necessarily "reliable." The word "unreliable" is tricky because it's a vague statement. What does it mean that our senses are unreliable? That we cannot rely on our senses at all, or just not completely? I think, since each person has an subjective perspective, in a way all senses are unreliable. People may experience the same situation, but their senses will interpret it differently. Does that not imply a sort of unreliability?
Conclusion: "Therefore, the sense perception of the human species that is in existence today (i.e., modern humans or Homo sapiens) is reliable (unreliable sense perception is the exception, not the rule)."
As I said before, I think that senses do have a sort of unreliable element to them since everyone interprets their surroundings a little bit differently. Although we may experience the same thing, our brain registers those senses a bit differently. Our sense perception is a bit more complicated than just experiencing what is around us because of our own interpretations. Once interpretation and subjectivity comes into play, what our senses register becomes a bit less reliable.
I think the argument could be stronger if interpretation was included somehow.
To say that sense perception is reliable is to say that beliefs that are based on sense perception are true more often than not. For example, if I believe that there is a red apple in front of me, given that it looks to me like there is a red apple in front of me, and there really is a red apple in front of me, then my perceptual belief is true. If perceptual beliefs are true more often than not, then sense perception is reliable. On the other hand, if perceptual beliefs are false more often than not, then sense perception is unreliable.
DeleteI agree with the above argument, but only to an extent. Yes, sense perception is our only means of extracting information from the world; but this does necessarily mean our senses do not deceive us from time to time, and sometimes lead to deadly consequences. For example, an individual driving with bad eyesight is forced to doubt all information they take it from their vision; otherwise expect to be in a terrible incident.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I will admit there is some truth to this argument, sense perceptions are deceive too often to be shrugged of as merely an "exception"..
It is contradicting to say that sense perception is not a reliable source of information about the external world but it is necessary for our survival. Without our senses, we would not be able to do anything this life. We would not be able to communicate, adapt, or just through live life. I think our senses cannot keep up with the constant changes around us. It is different now from way back during the start of our existence. Our senses are not reliable because of the tricks or alternate decisions that exists to confuse our senses and make us second guess ourselves. I do not think because of our poor senses, our species will die out. We will have technology and other resources that will keep our senses advanced in order to keep us alive.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that out perceptive powers are inherently flawed is often illustrated by means of various optical, auditory, and haptic illusions. It is argued that our ability to perceive the outside world is subject to many systematic flaws within our sensory system. Conversely, others see this as an artifact of an evolutionary mechanism aided our survival as a species. It is true that a variety of different illusions can trick our basic sensory perceptions. However, these illusions are often a function of what is an innate, information processing system that looks to make sense of the world in a way that is most suitable for us. The argument presented here is not an accurate representation of either perspective. In P-C form:
ReplyDelete(P1) Sense perception is our only source of information about the external world. (P2) If sense perception were unreliable, then we wouldn't survive and our species would eventually die out. (C) Therefore, the sense perception of the human species that is in existence today is reliable.
This argument is fallacious, as the premises are not quite true and represent some fundamental misunderstandings about both evolution, and our sensory systems. (P1) states that sensory perception is our ONLY source of information about the external world. If this is the case then we can effectively eliminate all the parts of the human brain that are not associated with our direct perception of stimuli, and nothing will change. We can obtain information without any conscious perception of stimuli and react to this information without having any conscious knowledge of this information. An example of such an effect can be seen in experiments that involve priming of stimuli below the sensory threshold for perception, and the effects that primed (flashed rapidly, not consciously perceived) stimuli have on subsequent behavior. Additionally, we can imagine and learn to understand the intricacies of stimuli that we have never been in direct contact with by means of simulation (imagining and conceptualizing this stimulus). Information can be obtained simply through biochemistry via neurotransmitters[; i.e. : depression (low levels of Serotonin).
(P2) Firstly, what does it mean that our sensory perception is reliable? Evolutionarily? Between exposure to the same stimulus? This is not explained and fallacious already simply by means of ambiguity, though an incorrect conceptualization of evolutionary theory, as well as a tautological and misguided formulation of the argument follows. This evolutionary misconception is referred to as hyper-evolutionary, which refers to the false idea that all of our inherited traits are necessarily adaptive. This is a not true, and it is not the case that simply because we have a certain inherited trait, that it is one that is adaptive. Environmental change is guaranteed, and maladaptive traits can be only a small environmental variation from adaptive traits. Also, there are many organisms that have thrived without any complex sensory systems.
(C) Thus we see that the conclusion is not warranted, and is fallacious. Additionally, an evolutionary misconception in regards to this argument lies in the idea of relating "reliability" to adaptive/maladaptive traits. Take the Salmon for example, it's means of procreation is one that is more likely to lead to death than the actual spread of it's DNA. You can in a sense say that it's evolved mechanism for reproduction is rather unreliable. However, it is seen as adaptive because it is able to produce very many new progeny. We can now see how this argument is fallacious, and an imprecise attempt at a deductive argument.