1. Theory of Science Reflection

Since my reflection on this topic is limited to the blog postings of my other classmates and further readings, I will try to point a few things out which stuck in my mind the last days.

The concept of Russell’s sense-data was grasped pretty well from everyone, because in my opinion we are easily satisfied with his rational explanation of things. Sense-data was laid out as the information we immediately experience through our senses when we perceive something. It can be considered as signs of existence of something that is independent of us.

However, I’m questioning if this also applies to our dreams? When we dream of an object, let it be a table or a person, I believe that we actually do have the sensations we think we have. But then, for what reason does our sensation not correspond to a physical object? Why can we dream of ghosts or make up creatures in our imagination that doesn’t exist in our common sense ‘reality’?

I believe that experiences go beyond our consciousness and sense-datum isn’t always connected to physical objects.

I want to illustrate my thoughts with another example. If our table is hidden behind a table cloth – would we start thinking that there is a piece of cotton remaining static in the air? No that would be ridiculous and we actually do believe, that there is a table underneath the cloth, although we don’t receive the immediate sense-data of the table itself. The most prominent reason for that might be that we learned to recall sense-data when we assume that we already experienced something. By doing so, we are making up a quick explanation for what we just perceived in order to satisfy our minds, even though we cannot be certain what it really is. Russell’s explanation of knowledge by description could explain this phenomenon, when somebody would actually describe this object to us, by saying that there is a table underneath the cloth. But, even if there is nobody to do that, we would know that this is a table. Is there a knowledge by assumption? Or is there a knowledge by memory from which we can recall sense-data of experiences that happened in the past?

Furthermore I’m asking myself, what happens when we receive sense-datum that doesn’t correspond to any object we have knowledge of, e.g. hallucinations? Is it our senses that cheat on us or do we perceive something we don’t know it exists? I will leave this open for discussion.

What I found really difficult to understand is Russell’s concept of knowledge and his reasoning behind if we can know anything at all? While reading through the other blog postings I could see that I’m not the only one struggling with that. I gave it a new try and understood how he differentiates knowledge. Besides knowledge by description and acquaintance there is empirical knowledge which can be called so, when it lies to a great extend upon experience and asserts existence. And there is a priori knowledge which is independent of all particular experiences and hypothetical concerning existence.

But here again, I’m struggling: What is knowledge that is independent of all experiences since experiences or sensations are the only things of which we can be certain of? Ayn Rand puts it like this: “If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms” (Rand 1963: 124). According to Rand, the act of being conscious of something presupposes the primacy of existence. Then I’m asking: Is it just our consciousness that perceives the world and creates reason behind it or is there something that is extant? When everything is entirely made up by our mind, there might be no object to be known, but only to be created by our own subjective consciousness.

Descartes assertion “I think, therefore I am” becomes obscure to me and I feel like replacing it with: “I want it to be, therefore it is”.

References:

Rand, A. (1963): For the New Intellectual. The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Flensburg: Signet.