|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2001 : 04:25:21
|
Either our senses are trustworthy or they aren't, if they aren't then all of science is rendered void.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 06:18:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Either our senses are trustworthy or they aren't, if they aren't then all of science is rendered void.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Sounds like existentialism to me. The fact is that with a basic attack on the only means of input, all human interaction with the outside world becomes invalid. Including each other, religion as it is taught, science, the neighbor's cat, etc. If the person you are argueing with comes up with that kind of condemnation of our senses, ask him what should be used to judge the outside world. Please reference that all organized religion is taught by someone by someone else or read in a religious document. If we cannot trust our senses, then we cannot count on what we hear about religion or read. Any interaction with the outside world comes through our senses. I would say that our senses are trustworth, our interpretation of those senses may be flawed without independant review and verification.
|
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 06:27:58 [Permalink]
|
That's a bit too black and white for my taste. The human senses are just data sensors. The information still has to be processed and interpreted. On top of that, certain emotional pre-dispositions stemming from environmental and cultural conditioning have to be factored in. There's a bias to see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. That's what made illusionists like Harry Houdini and David Copperfield so popular.
You need go no farther than Sept.11th. The initial gut reaction for many people was "I don't believe what I'm seeing". The senses still impressed on the brain the same data, repeat after repeat. Then it "sunk in". The data was interpreted correctly.
That is my un-scientific analysis.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 06:58:56 [Permalink]
|
simple case of false dichotomy, either our sences are perfect or totaly useless.
Our senses are trustworthy, but not not perfect. Any of a number of demonstrations will show our sences work. Whip a few optical illusions on them then to show how they can be fooled. There is actualy an artists that uses models and camera angles to make photographs of well known illusions, such as the stairway to nowhere. It is very interesting to see these as photos rather than drawings.
If the person you are arguing with is a bible thumper then you could counter that either the bible is completely correct, or it is all bull. Then point out any of the many inconsistencies or contradictions in it.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 08:20:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Either our senses are trustworthy or they aren't, if they aren't then all of science is rendered void.
False dichotomy to begin with; it is certainly possible that some of the information is valid and some not. I will assume that 'trustworthy' here means 'valid.' That is, the information gathered by the senses is an accurate sample of reality. Obviously, there is a limit to the conscious control humans have over sensory information processing. The heuristics that control sensory information processing are largely autonomic. In order to reasonably infer that the information pathway is flawed, there must be a way of knowing reality independent of sensory information. There must also be a way to discern the validity of that metaknowledge. As you can see by now, the whole thing quickly degenerates into infinite regress hell. This scenario is custom made for Occam's Razor.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 08:28:06 [Permalink]
|
Fortunately we do have some general consensus about what reality is with some exceptions like some people being color blind etc. Just give an example that we all know what a TV is and can more or less agree about what a television program is about. We might as individuals remember more or notice more or less but we do see pretty close to the same thing.
We also know that some things are consistent and happen over and over again and we can describe things to other people in a way that they understand. Miracles and the supernatural, however, seem to be one time events that cannot be reproduced and do defy what we all generally agree on as reality. People that tell me they believe in the supernatural and miracles and tell me they've experienced them always say that what they say/experienced can't be explained. Well, if you can't explain it then it sure doesn't fit into my model of reality.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 22:42:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Either our senses are trustworthy or they aren't
Depends on what you mean by senses. Depends on what you mean by trustworthy.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 22:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Our senses are trustworthy, but not not perfect. Any of a number of demonstrations will show our sences work. Whip a few optical illusions on them then to show how they can be fooled
Yes, that's what I meant too. The sense of touch, smell, etc., all can be made to 'think' what is, is not or the reverse.
Hot and cold is another example....The old trick of telling someone something is hot and putting a piece of ice on them!!!
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 00:33:42 [Permalink]
|
I tried the false dichotomy thing - they have no concept of the logical argument. But if I say:
Science relies on more than the perceptions of one individual, instead requiring the empirical testing of many individuals to verify results. Though a hypothesis is tested through the senses, it is ultimately the individuals interpretation of the information that gives sensory input validity. Validity is testable through scientific review, until a consensus is reached as to the meaning or interpretation of a given set of sensory data.
Comments?
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 00:45:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Science relies on more than the perceptions of one individual, instead requiring the empirical testing of many individuals to verify results. Though a hypothesis is tested through the senses, it is ultimately the individuals interpretation of the information that gives sensory input validity. Validity is testable through scientific review, until a consensus is reached as to the meaning or interpretation of a given set of sensory data.
Comments?
Bingo!
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 08:12:42 [Permalink]
|
It's accepted that our senses are the only methods of gathering information. It's reasonable to suggest that our senses can be fooled.
However, that is why sciene requiers something demostratable and repeatable.
Science also teaches us that we don't have all the information available all the time. As our ability to evaluate our eviroment and ourselves develop we learn more that at one time we didn't know.
It's not unreasonalbe to think that we have another or other methods to gather information that aren't recognized currently.
The original question is pretty silly because we have to trust our senses. What else are you going to trust? The other senses that aren't discovered?
The fact that you looked at the computer to click submit shows that you trust your senses to relay accurate information.
To suggest otherwise would be to suggest your own misplaced trust, making the joke on the person suggesting such a notion.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
