indirect realism content

Question 1

What is indirect realism?

Answer 1

A world of mind independant external objects exists which we percieve via mediation of mind dependant sense data

Question 2

What was the reason for moving from DR into IR?

Answer 2

Issues w/DR —>
- perceptual variation
- illusions
- hallucinations

Question 3

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of perceptual variation with DR?

Answer 3

The object stays the same but our perceptions and sense data of the object change

Question 4

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of illusion with DR?

Answer 4

Our perceptions of the object change but the object itself remains the same.

Question 5

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of Halluciantions which is faced by DR?

Answer 5

Hallucinations are perceptions that do not correspond to anything in real life and therefore dont actually exist

Question 6

What are the four features of sense data?

Answer 6

1) Private - only introspectivly accessible through self reflection, subjective
2) Temporary - they are not perminant, exist only when being percieved
3) Immaterial - they are mental things not physical
4) Exactly as the seem - they are just the way we see them

Question 7

What is the difference between the epistemological and metaphysical version of Ockhams razor?

Answer 7

The epistemological version is that the simplest possible option is often the best one whereas the metaphysical version is to not multiply entities beyond necessity

Question 8

What is unnecessary reification?

Answer 8

unneccisarily claiming that something exists

Question 9

Objections to IR - Unnecessary reification - Austin. What does Austin mean when he said that sense data are an example of unnecessary reification?

Answer 9

There is no reason for IR to claim the existance of sense data when disjunctivism already resolves the issue with DR. So, he thinks that sensa data doesnt follow the metaphysical version of DR – to not multiply entities beyond necessity.

Question 10

What are Primary qualities? give 5 examples
-objects that dont retain their shape when changed

Answer 10

• size, shape, speed, number, solidity

Question 11

What is the 6 natures (ontology) of PQs?

Answer 11

• mind independant —> the qualities are inside the object
• accuratly resemble the objects qualities
• measureable and objective
• physical qualities
• cause SQs
• make up reality

Question 12

Whatare the 4 ways we know (epistemology) of PQS?

Answer 12

• known indirectly
• not subject to perceptual variation
• can be measured
• can be doubted and questioned

Question 13

What are secondary qualities? give 5 examples

Answer 13

Qualities that are altered and dependant by/on primary qualities
- temperature
- smell
- taste
- colour
- sound

Question 14

What is the nature (ontology) of SQs?

Answer 14

• powers of objects to produce sensations in the mind of the perciever —> mind dependant
• represent but do not resemble the object
• subjective and not measurable
• mental qualities
• caused by PQs
• make up experiences rather than reality

Question 15

How do we know (epistemology) of SQs?

Answer 15

• known directly
• subject to perceptual variation
• knowable via introspection —> examining ones own mind
• cannot be doubted

Question 16

What is the difference between rationalists and empiricists?

Answer 16

Rationalists = reason, believe that we can deduce and rationalise things without having to experience them such as with maths or physics. empiricists believe knowledge comes from experiences.

Question 17

What are the 4 objections to IR?

Answer 17

• unnecessary reification - Austin
• there is no distinction between P+S qualities - Berkeley
• we cannot know the nature of the external world - Berkeley
• IR leads to scepticism of the external world

Question 18

Objections to IR - Berkley - There is no distinction between P+S qualities
What would Berkeley say about touching a hot object?

Answer 18

• If we touch a hot object, the pain we feel is in our fingertips not the radiator which means that pain is mind dependant
• Berkeley would say we have a unified perception because we cannot distinguish between our perceptions of heat or of pain.
  They must be located in the same place

Question 19

Objections to IR - Berkley - There is no distinction between P+S qualities
What conclusion is reached?

Answer 19

Both P+S qualities are mind dependant because our perceptions are unified because we cannot percieve objects without secondary qualitites also being present.

Question 20

Objections to IR - Sceptism
Give the formal argument for the objection of not knowing the nature of the external world — P1, P2 and C1

Answer 20

P1) Everything we percieve is either a P/SQ
P2) Both P+SQs are mind dependant
C1) Therefore, nothing we percieve exists external and independant of the mind, the objects of our perceptions are therefore fully mind depenedant.

Question 21

Objections - Sceptisism of the external world
What is philosophical sceptisism?

Answer 21

Doubting the usual justifications we have for the things we claim we know

—> Doubting the usual justification for the claim that the external world exists in this IR example

Question 22

Why is the sceptisism argument convincing?

Answer 22

• makes sense for P+S qualities to be MD
• we cannot concieve or imagine objects without both of these MD qualitites

Question 23

Why would Berkeley argue that the sceptisism argument against IR is unconvincing?

Answer 23

• we can measure PQs so they must be MID as Locke argues

Question 24

what is the brain in a vat thought experiment and how does it link to IR leading to scepticism of the external world

Answer 24

• a mad scientist has developed technology allowing them to store brains in vats connected to powerful computers
• the computer stimulates the brain to produce sensations and is so powerful that it can induce the hallucination of actual experience
• to the brain there is no difference between this fake simulation and the real world
• brain in a vat links to scepticism of the external world (global)

Question 25

some argue IR puts a veil of perception over reality - what is this - why is this an issue

Answer 25

- we can only be certain that we percieve the mind dependant intermediary (sense data/qualities) but cannot be certain that we percieve the mind dependant objects themselves - IR claims we percieve sense data immediately and directly which means we never actually percieve mind dependant objects. at best all we can do is infer that these objects exist ---> we cannot know for certain

Question 26

what are the 4 responses to the objection that IR leads to scepticism of the external world

Answer 26

- argument from the involuntary nature of our experiences - Lock - argument from the coherent nature of our experiences - Locke + Cockburn - scepticism of the xternal world is impractical - Locke - the existance of the external world is the best hypothesis - Russel

Question 27

summarise the argument that because our perceptions are involuntary it means they must be caused by mind independant objects

Answer 27

- Locke reasons that through specific examples of involuntary perception, it is more likely that mind independant objects cause these perceptions - he rules himself out as the cause of these perceptions because if he were the cause then he would have control over his ability to percieve, but he doesnt, so MI objects are likely to exist - we can therefore infer the existance of mind independant objects as the most likely cause of our involuntary perceptions

Question 28

what are the counter examples to mind independent objects being the cause of our involuntary perceptions

Answer 28

- we dont have control over our dreams - Locke response that dreams are incoherent so cannot be used as a strong enough example

Question 29

what does it mean for our senses to cohere

Answer 29

they work together and dont contradict

Question 30

summarise the argument that because our perceptions cohere, it means they must be caused by mind independant objects

Answer 30

- when we percieve, we can use other senses to check those perceptions - straw in glass illusion = use our sense of touch to prove it isnt bent - we seem to get the same perception from our different perceptions ---> fire = always a similar smell and sound, similar heat, similar image and light - we can then infer that the cause of this must be mind independant - this is another inductive argument

Question 31

what was the one way to prove to a sceptic that an external world of mind independant objects exists according to locke - unintuituve, no one would actually live like that, example

Answer 31

- Locke thinks that actually living life as a sceptic would be dangerous because we wouldnt take things seriously enough - he also believed that no sceptic actually believes in scepticism enough to interact with the world in that way - he would tell a sceptic to put their hand on the flame of a candle but they would never do that because it would hurt ---> this proves there are consequences to our actions which are outside of our control through which we can infer the existance of the external world

Question 32

how could the brain in a vat thought experiment respond to each of the three attempted defenses of indirect realism

Answer 32

- a sceptic could argue that the evil scientist is programming our perceptions into being coherent and could programme consequences for our scepticism into the world - so our perceptions would still be involuntary and caused by the scientist - so those inductive arguments dont give us any certainty to the existance of the external world

Question 33

what is abductive reasoning - used by Russel to offer an alternative to Lockes inductive arguments

Answer 33

- scientific, hypothesis based reasoning - take a hypothesis and see if it relates to the world and then explain why

Question 34

what is the formal argument from the best hypothesis theory to prove the existance of the external world

Answer 34

P1) Either physical objects exist and cause sense data or they dont exist and dont cause sense data P2) Niether claim can be proved to be true or false C1) Therefore, both have to be treated as hypotheses (a proposal which needs to be confirmed or rejected based on experience or reasoning) P3) The hypothesis that physical objects exist and cause sense data is better C2) Therefore physical objects exist and cause sense data

Question 35

what are the 5 waysof judging a hypothesis in abductive reasoning - PASSC

Answer 35

- simplicity - accuracy - plausability - fits with what we already know - scope - explains a wide range of evidence - coherence