Indirect Realism: Perception and Reality

PRCE 1: Point

• Indirect realism suggests a "veil of perception" obstructs direct access to the external world, leading to skepticism about mind-independent objects.
• It raises the question of whether our sense-data accurately represents the external world.

PRCE 1: Response

• Shared experiences among individuals suggest an accurate perception of reality.
• The human species' survival implies that our representations of the world must be vitally accurate.

PRCE 1: Counter Response

• Shared experiences do not guarantee accuracy, as collective perceptions could still be inaccurate.
• The problem of uncertainty about the accuracy of our view of the world remains unsolved.

PRCE 1: Evaluation

• The argument highlights the problem of being certain our experiences are accurate, even with shared experiences.
• The survival of humans indicates that accuracies in our perception have enabled survival, despite the lack of certainty.

PRCE 2: Point

• Indirect realism may lead to global skepticism about the existence of mind-independent objects.
• We only perceive the external world through sense-data, so how can we know if an external world exists?

PRCE 2: Response

• Russell argues that the external world is the best hypothesis based on Occam's razor where the simplest explanation makes the most sense.
• The example of a rotting apple in a drawer illustrates that things jumping in and out of existence lacks rational sense.

PRCE 2: Counter

• The best hypothesis suggesting that the external world exists does not provide proof.
• The possibility of a brain in a vat or an evil deceiver could also lead to sense-data.

PRCE 2: Evaluation

• Scientific method and logical reasoning makes knowledge of the external world possible even though it is not absolutely certain.
• Belief in the external world comes from evidence provided by our senses and inferences from that evidence, not intuition or faith according to Russell.
• Belief in the external world is rational, because it is based on the best evidence available.

PRCE 3: Point

• Berkeley extends Locke's reasoning by stating that primary qualities are also mind-dependent.
• This contradicts indirect realism and suggests that everything, including the external world, relies on the mind.

PRCE 3: Response

• Locke argues for an external, mind-independent cause of our perceptions and uses examples to do so - challenging Berkeley's claim with the involuntary and coherent nature of the senses.

PRCE 3: Counter

• There is a lack of certainty in the argument, despite proving and external, mind-independent cause, it may not be the external world.
• Could still be a brain in a vat or evil deceiver.
• Berkeley would argue that sensory perception is involuntary and coherent because God provides it.

PRCE 3: Evaluate

• Reliance on God causes Berkeley's ideas to fail.
• The likeliest scenario would be the existence of a mind-independent world.
• Lack of complete certainty would be critically damaging for someone like Descartes.
• It is a useful form of perception, even though it is not certain.
• Locke states that we do not need to take the extreme from of scepticism seriously, using the persuasive example of challenging the sceptic to test the hypothesis that a burning furnace might be a part of a dream.