Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The inference from 'x appears F' to 'there is an object t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→In cases of illusion, there must be something experienced that has the features the perceiver takes themselves to be experiencing, and these experiential objects are called sense-data.

    The inference from 'x appears F' to 'there is an object that is F' commits the sense-datum fallacy identified by Chisholm and later Austin himself.

    ?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.Appearance claims describe subjective experience, not objective properties. Inferring objects possess those properties illicitly shifts categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same object can appear F to one observer and not-F to another, so 'appears F' cannot entail 'is F' without additional justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Chisholm showed that sense-datum theory avoids skepticism by treating appearances as evidence rather than guarantees of external facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The inference is not from 'appears F' alone but from 'appears F' + background causal and perceptual reliability assumptions, which are legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Austin himself rejected sense-datum theory entirely; attributing a 'fallacy' to him misrepresents his ordinary language approach to perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Appearance-to-object inferences work fine in normal conditions; calling all such inferences fallacious sets an unreasonably high epistemological standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception1 linked

    Related

    Appearance claims describe subjective experience, not objective properties. Infe...Appearance-to-object inferences work fine in normal conditions; calling all such...Austin himself rejected sense-datum theory entirely; attributing a 'fallacy' to ...Chisholm showed that sense-datum theory avoids skepticism by treating appearance...
    +3 moreShow less
    In cases of illusion, there must be something experienced that has the features ...The inference is not from 'appears F' alone but from 'appears F' + background ca...The same object can appear F to one observer and not-F to another, so 'appears F...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit