If imperceptible things are genuinely beyond perceptual access, then perceptual signs—themselves part of the unreliable phenomenal realm—cannot serve as a stable epistemic bridge to them.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Stable(whether the core idea stands on its own): Something that doesn't change, fall apart, or depend on other things to make sense.
epistemic bridge(what perceptual signs are supposed to provide to imperceptible things): A reliable connection or method that allows you to gain knowledge about something; a way of knowing.
epistemology(Contrasted with purely descriptive scientific inquiry): A normative enterprise that tells us how we ought to reason from evidence and how we ought to justify our beliefs, as distinct from merely describing how we do reason or justify beliefs
imperceptible(describing properties of physical entities): Unable to be seen, heard, felt, or detected by the human senses.
perceptual access(Used in the context of perceiving what animals are thinking and feeling): The ability to directly perceive or 'see' the mental states of another being through observation of their behavior and expressions
perceptual signs(things we use to learn about the world): Observable clues or indicators that you can sense; things you perceive that point to or represent something else.
phenomenal realm(describes the source of perceptual signs): The world of things as they appear to us through our senses and experiences, as opposed to how they might actually be independent of our perception.

2 topics