Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.
Again, what is of particular importance to me here is this: that when it comes to what we see and hear and touch and smell and taste, it is often possible to actually demonstrate it to others. Such that they will see and hear and touch and smell and taste the same thing. No "dancing with absurdity" then.Empiricists don’t insist that we see the world with total accuracy. They acknowledge the occurrence of hallucinations and sensory illusions; but they say that hallucinations are rare, and that illusions play a trivial role in daily life. They conclude that sensory data are generally accurate.
Indeed. And we live our lives from day to day hardly ever mistrusting our senses.Moreover, empiricists Gilbert Ryle and John Austin argued that our ability to detect illusions is evidence for the general trustworthiness of our senses. That is, from the fact that imperfections are infrequently detected, they made the dubious inferences that imperfections are rare and perceptions are typically accurate.
Nope, the dancing with absurdity part only kicks in [time and again] when we get around to conflicting value judgments.
And we all know how far this can be taken...if only [so far] up on the silver screen:Yet reliable estimation of the frequency of illusions and hallucinations is impossible. You may be experiencing one this very moment and not know it.
Pick one:
1] red pill
2] blue pill
But then, even in the either/or world, things can get...complicated?
I don't know about infinite, but any number of true crime docs reveal just how notorious "eyewitnesses" can be:Furthermore, even if our sensory systems were perfect, we’d still face two insurmountable obstacles to certainty. First, the fidelity of human memory is, to put it charitably, considerably less than high. Second, an infinite number of interpretations are compatible with any given perception.
"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes." Constitutional Rights Foundation
And here life and death itself can be at stake.
True enough. But until mere mortals acquire the capacity to become omniscient, there's no getting around at least trying to make the best of them. And that's why, in regard to things like crime, eyewitnesses are just one component of any particular case. There is also forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence and [of course] the fact that nowadays there are billions of cameras everywhere.Maybe it’s churlish to point out yet another problem, but, strictly speaking, empiricism is self-refuting – the claim that all knowledge is gained through the senses is a claim not gained through the senses.