ddoubledekker
Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 9,2018

Thu Nov 1,2018 09:44 PM

Can someone give me brief ideas on what to write? I’m so lost.
Lg0308
Posts: 0
Joined: Jan 28,2018

Thu Nov 1,2018 10:03 PM

In the context of the Natural Sciences:

1) Reliable:
-Provides knowledge about the natural world (most immediate and crucial form of knowledge). Allows scientists to form empirical evidence.
-reliable if senses function adequately (an altered perception of sense due to a disorder/desease reduces the reliability of the knowledge)

2) Unreliable:
-Is extremely deceptive and subjective due to biases (e.g: emotions, interests, past experiences). Look at Hermann von Helmholtz’s ideas.
This supports the statement: “all the things I see are illusions”
-is very limited: human range of sense perception is a biological limitation for scientists (we can’t see microscopic organisms with the naked eye, or hear certain pitches that other organisms can). This means we don’t have a complete perception of the natural world.

Overall, sense perception is a good foundation for knowledge, but isn’t fully reliable. This is why we have to recognize its faults and critically evaluating it (in terms of the Natural sciences, this can be done via the scientific method).
Lg0308
Posts: 0
Joined: Jan 28,2018

Thu Nov 1,2018 10:03 PM

Hope this helps!

Quick Reply

 

Return to Theory of Knowledge