m hall - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Michael Hall michaelhallatty@gmail.com Ph.D. Philosophy, U. Colorado 1972 JD Suffolk U. 199 1Interests: Plato, Aristotle, Wittgenstein, logic, epistemology
Address: United States
less
Related Authors
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research
Uploads
Papers by m hall
When two go together, one sees before the other -Homer If we we want to find out what is going on... more When two go together, one sees before the other -Homer If we we want to find out what is going on when something happens, we make an observation; and if we want to find out what is going on when we observe something, to tell, for example, if we are actually observing what we think we are observing, we have to get someone to observe us observing (to see if we are right). The first thing this second observer observes is a hiatus between the appearance of the object or occurrence of the event observed and our observation of it, and in between the procession of optical and neurological phenomena that make up the visual process. We observe that something happened at 7PM, but anyone observing us will observe that we observe it after 7 because she observes the whole visual process and the visual process takes time. This makes it look as if we observe things only after the fact, as if conditions of observation, such as the speed of light and neural impulses, set epistemic limits to what we can observe such that we can never observe things as they are. Such scepticism has itself always been suspect since it relies on observations (of light, neural impulses) to cast doubt on observation. Besides that, the time-delay is apparent only to observers of observersobservers do not observe it. So the discrepancy between observation ("at 7") and observation of observation ("after 7") is better explained in another way that has nothing to do with the empirical conditions of observation.
Drafts by m hall
Scepticism is indefensible.There is no arguing that nothing is known..This is often discounted as... more Scepticism is indefensible.There is no arguing that nothing is known..This is often discounted as a mere pragmatic refutation of scepticism because It might still be true even if it is indefensible. We put this intuition to the test and find that it too is indefensible..
When two go together, one sees before the other -Homer If we we want to find out what is going on... more When two go together, one sees before the other -Homer If we we want to find out what is going on when something happens, we make an observation; and if we want to find out what is going on when we observe something, to tell, for example, if we are actually observing what we think we are observing, we have to get someone to observe us observing (to see if we are right). The first thing this second observer observes is a hiatus between the appearance of the object or occurrence of the event observed and our observation of it, and in between the procession of optical and neurological phenomena that make up the visual process. We observe that something happened at 7PM, but anyone observing us will observe that we observe it after 7 because she observes the whole visual process and the visual process takes time. This makes it look as if we observe things only after the fact, as if conditions of observation, such as the speed of light and neural impulses, set epistemic limits to what we can observe such that we can never observe things as they are. Such scepticism has itself always been suspect since it relies on observations (of light, neural impulses) to cast doubt on observation. Besides that, the time-delay is apparent only to observers of observersobservers do not observe it. So the discrepancy between observation ("at 7") and observation of observation ("after 7") is better explained in another way that has nothing to do with the empirical conditions of observation.
Scepticism is indefensible.There is no arguing that nothing is known..This is often discounted as... more Scepticism is indefensible.There is no arguing that nothing is known..This is often discounted as a mere pragmatic refutation of scepticism because It might still be true even if it is indefensible. We put this intuition to the test and find that it too is indefensible..