Because all distinctions imply dichotomies, no? It’s pretty much distinguishing the inputs (raw data) from the processing (sense-perception).
-Jon
Can you illustrate that using the grey bar illusion ? What’s meant by raw data ? Are you talking about the electrical signals going from the eye to the brain ?
What about the processing part ? Is that the step which is failing ?
I’m not sure there is any such evidence to support the validity of our senses. However, if you reject your sense data, then you have no data at all of an external reality. None, zip nada. We have to rely on our sense data because that’s all we have. Even if our sense data is flawed in some way, there’s no way to show otherwise, there is no other data we can gather and compare with our sense data, except for more sense data. All testing, all verification, all justification is based upon sense data. Therefore, sense data is axiomatic because you have no other options for a source of data. All that we think, all that we know, all that we think we know, even all that we believe, is ultimately based upon our sense data.
That’s called faith. Although I agree that for practical reasons we must use our sense data, if you’re trying to formulate an ethical theory, it would make more sense to do so on an a priori basis.
As for data “of an external reality,” I suppose you’ve never heard of the debate over analytic a priori, logic, and mathematics?
That is almost a kind of argument from ignorance.
That doesn’t make sense data axiomatic. An axiom is something that can be proven true by default, e.g. human action. You can’t prove that human action is false because in doing so you are acting. Sensory data is not the same.
If there’s no shortage of evidence, why don’t you provide some of it here?
So how do you know that the senses aren’t some kind of internal experience or cognitive mistake?
I’m not arguing for solipsism, I’m asking for evidence of the validity of our senses. So far, nobody has provided any of that evidence.
It does show that humans are capable of sensing one thing but seeing something else. The broader question here is whether or not our senses are real or if they’re simply some kind of internal mechanism. If you believe in objective science, you would have to take a neutral position on the topic until some evidence has been presented for either side. This is what I’m doing. I’m asking for evidence to be presented but nobody is presenting any evidence which is my problem here.
I’m having trouble coming up with any a priori argument that isn’t ultimately based on sense data. Mises’ “man acts”, for example, would be impossible to formulate without the awareness of men and action. Logic is always based upon some kind of premise, and where do those premises come from? Mathematics is just another logical construct. How could it have been developed without the basic development of arithmetic, which was derived from emprical observation of objects (sense data)?
It’s not an argument–I’m making what seems to be a statement of fact to me. If it’s true, then complaining about the validity of sense data is pointlessly absurd, because there are no other options.
No, an axiom is something that is self-evident or true without proof. If there is absolutely no alternative to the senses as a source of data, then it must be self-evidently true, no proof required, and thus axiomatic. As A. Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
And if there is no alternative, how can it be faith? It’s not just practical, it’s all there is to go by. You have no choice.
Wait, there’s no reason to believe in the senses? There’s no reason to believe in causality? Because faith is belief without reason. Don’t just throw around a term for effect. One cannot but assume causality and one cannot but assume the reliability of the senses. Hence both are taken to be a priori by Austrians. I think you need to give Hoppe a read.
How does it relate? How is knowledge of mathematics possible without contact with the external world? Mathematics is only a priori in the sense that it does not required repeated testing, not in the sense that it can be known by a pure process of introspection.
How, pray tell, would you know you’re acting without sensory data? One way of “proving” (improper term to use in conjunction with ‘axioms’) an axiom is negative demonstration.
What do you want? A deductive proof? Which you will ultimately apprehend through your senses? There is no such thing in connection to this.
-Jon