18 ms·

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? “You know your brain adds things that are inaccurate” followed immediately by “you will only ever know the inside of your own

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? “You know your brain adds things that are inaccurate” followed immediately by “you will only ever know the inside of your own head.” Clearly we can use reason to learn things about the inaccuracies of our sensory perception.

bbor 3y ago
How could we learn the inaccuracies of our sense perceptions without involving those very same (flawed) perceptions? I totally agree that it is our duty to identify and account for our biases and inaccuracies, but I don’t think we could ever reach any meaningful certainty about the topic.
- tshaddox 3y ago
  We’re always using perception, of course, but we can learn about inaccuracies in one perception using a different perception (and reason). A very obvious example is optical illusions, but this is in fact the case with all observations. To make scientific conclusions from observations made using a telescope, you need to know how the telescope works. And the same is true of all observations from all instruments, including for example the human visual system.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > How could we learn the inaccuracies of our sense perceptions without involving those very same (flawed) perceptions? By taking measurements from machines, who are devoid of such flaws. > I totally agree that it is our duty to identify and account for our biases and inaccuracies, but I don’t think we could ever reach any meaningful certainty about the topic. What in the world? That's literally what science has been attempting to do for over 1000 years. With varying degrees of success, true, but it's the best way we have so far to be able to approximate 'reality' without relying on our senses.
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    > By taking measurements from machines, who are devoid of such flaws. Kinda. We still need to know how the machine works, which of course involves making observations of the machine which are themselves error-prone.
  - bbor 3y ago
    I think you've nailed what I'm trying to say, based on your incredulity; I too love science and think that the quest for certain beliefs is a massive boon to human happiness and purpose. I just think it's important to remember that perfect certainty can never be reached - kinda asymptotic in that way. It might seem pedantic, but I think it's an helpful core belief/perspective for any effective and creative scientist. A little humility never hurts! Re:machines; machines might be better engineered and tested, but they're never perfect - they could be broken, or (much more commonly) they could be designed to measure the wrong thing, in other words using their measurements to justify invalid conclusions. That's what the writing above is getting at and I'm mangling it a bit, but I hope you see my perspective on why I would never say I'm "100%" certain that any scientific fact is true.

bbor 3y ago

How could we learn the inaccuracies of our sense perceptions without involving those very same (flawed) perceptions? I totally agree that it is our duty to identify and account for our biases and inaccuracies, but I don’t think we could ever reach any meaningful certainty about the topic.

tshaddox 3y ago
We’re always using perception, of course, but we can learn about inaccuracies in one perception using a different perception (and reason). A very obvious example is optical illusions, but this is in fact the case with all observations. To make scientific conclusions from observations made using a telescope, you need to know how the telescope works. And the same is true of all observations from all instruments, including for example the human visual system.
antisthenes 3y ago
> How could we learn the inaccuracies of our sense perceptions without involving those very same (flawed) perceptions? By taking measurements from machines, who are devoid of such flaws. > I totally agree that it is our duty to identify and account for our biases and inaccuracies, but I don’t think we could ever reach any meaningful certainty about the topic. What in the world? That's literally what science has been attempting to do for over 1000 years. With varying degrees of success, true, but it's the best way we have so far to be able to approximate 'reality' without relying on our senses.
- tshaddox 3y ago
  > By taking measurements from machines, who are devoid of such flaws. Kinda. We still need to know how the machine works, which of course involves making observations of the machine which are themselves error-prone.
- bbor 3y ago
  I think you've nailed what I'm trying to say, based on your incredulity; I too love science and think that the quest for certain beliefs is a massive boon to human happiness and purpose. I just think it's important to remember that perfect certainty can never be reached - kinda asymptotic in that way. It might seem pedantic, but I think it's an helpful core belief/perspective for any effective and creative scientist. A little humility never hurts! Re:machines; machines might be better engineered and tested, but they're never perfect - they could be broken, or (much more commonly) they could be designed to measure the wrong thing, in other words using their measurements to justify invalid conclusions. That's what the writing above is getting at and I'm mangling it a bit, but I hope you see my perspective on why I would never say I'm "100%" certain that any scientific fact is true.