Is this a philosophically valid statement?

Hey, I'm curious if the below statement is philosophically valid. If it isn't how can I improve it.

Our perception of reality is limited by our senses.
Previous paradigms of reality have been discarded based upon improved sense perception.
Therefore as sense perceptions improve, it is likely our paradigm of reality will change.

Our knowledge of reality is not limited by our senses.

I think that the first proposition is an assumption (premise or premiss) and so may be false without invalidating the argument. I think in general the argument should be tightened up a lot, but I don't see that it is not valid; that is there is no rule of propositional logic contradicted in it.

I'd be happy to hear other serious considerations however.

By the way, in material implication, which you'd probably go through to get to the conclusion, any true proposition is implied by any proposition whatsoever. So if it is likely that our paradigm of reality will change, the antecedent can be crap but the conclusion still true.

Robert

Thanks for the feedback. What has me thinking about this is what Bryan Magee said in Confessions of a Philosopher where he talks about the nature of reality and how much of it is unknowable to us because of our limited sense perceptions. (Magee really got me thinking about this and other things so I highly recommend it).

I see our ability to apprehend empirical knowledge as limited by our innate and enhanced sense perceptions. Innate here meaning our natural abilities to see, taste, etc. Enhanced is what humans have done to improve our abilities such as microscopes, telescopes and other scientific equipment. My view of reality is surely debatable but what I mean is whatever combination of material (the physical stuff) and ideals (time, truth, beauty, etc.) So, it goes something like this:

Humans have the ability to sense.
As that ability to sense has improved, our apprehension of reality has also improved (i.e., Copernicus and helio-centrism).
Further sense improvements will result in a better understanding of reality.

As a matter of sheer speculation, though, I think that the majority of reality will remain unknowable to humans because of our limited senses.

>2 jimroberts:: Our knowledge of reality is not limited by our senses.

I don't necessarily disagree but I'd like to hear what you have to say. I think if we're considering scientific knowledge, our knowledge is limited. If we speak of things such as truth, justice, beauty, etc. than, no, our knowledge is not limited by our senses but by the capabilities of our minds. But that's just my opinion.

4> "Further sense improvements will result in a better understanding of reality"

I've become skeptical of the underlying assumption, that there is a given reality that we have found ourselves plopped into somehow, and that we spend our time groping around trying to figure out what to make of it. Instead, I've come to believe that whatever reality we might agree on at any moment we have made it up, constructed it, out of the results of the collaborative life-or-death experiments we engage in daily. Whatever sense it, what we're calling reality, makes is because we've stumbled on a way to keep ourselves alive so we can yak about it.

I don't think, that is, there is anything "out there" for us to discover, but there are many better stories we could be telling ourselves.

1>
Our perception of reality is limited by our senses.
Previous paradigms of reality have been discarded based upon improved sense perception.
Therefore as sense perceptions improve, it is likely our paradigm of reality will change.

A worthy but loaded question if ever there was one -- and put in the form of a classic syllogism, no less! ;- )

Taking your two premises and the conclusion as they stand -- and keeping with the terms you've chosen to employ, my initial questions would be these: 1) What is your general definition of 'reality'?; 2) What is the relation between the reality (or pick any other you may wish) that you've just described in 1) and its paradigm?; is it a hard and fast "given," a one-to-one relationship, so to speak (say as in a strict logical and/or mathematical implication), or is it perhaps open to a variety of interpretations -- because a term like 'perception' is not a commonly agreed upon or universally accepted item, is it?; 3) What is the basis upon which you judge one sense perception as being more (or less) "improved" than another?; And finally, to place the matter in some identifiable context, Which general theory of truth do you take to be primarily involved here: the Correspondence Theory of truth? (Aristotle's, let's say); the Coherence Theory of truth? (Bergson's maybe); the Pragmatic Theory of truth? (William James' possibly) -- all of the above?, or none of them? Without dealing with such questions as these, I would be at a loss to speak of or vaguely around the 'validity' you are interested in establishing. But that's just how I see the issue you've posed here.

Our knowledge of reality is not limited by our senses.

Why not?

#5 pmackey: "I don't necessarily disagree but I'd like to hear what you have to say. I think if we're considering scientific knowledge, our knowledge is limited."
& #8 timspalding

You've allowed that we can enhance our senses by use of technological devices, and such extension was mainly what influenced me to post.

Our knowledge will always be limited in practice because we don't live forever or have unlimited brainpower, but, although there will always be plenty that nobody knows, I don't see any limit in principle to the sorts of things we can know. (I'm using "knowledge" in the sense of "justified belief": I don't think there's infallible knowledge.)

I'm using "knowledge" in the sense of "justified belief": I don't think there's infallible knowledge.

I agree when using knowledge in your context that there is no hard and fast limit to what we can know. Regarding infallible knowledge, I also agree. What we know as scientific knowledge (i.e., facts and theories) can be overthrown or "falsified" by the latest discovery.

>7 GeneRuyle:, Plainswriter, you've given me a lot to unpack and a critique I needed. In philosophy the terms we use can carry so much unintended baggage that we do well to define how we intend to use our them. We should always at least try to be clear.

I'm going to print out your comment and think about it for a while. Thanks for your response.

>11 pmackey: You're most welcome. And -- as goes without saying, but just in case we easily lapse into ignoring it -- it behooves all the rest of us to be just as careful in selecting and using terms as you so obviously, and commendably, are striving to be.

There are just so many ways to go about investigating these matters, right? Philosophical terms are notorious for being "metaphysical grab bags," assuming a whole metaphysic, but one not acknowledged and smuggled in the back door, while using it to attack, bash, demean, discredit, demolish, or at least dismiss the position of the other (and oftentimes his or her person as well!)

We don't have to take a thoroughgoing Logical Positivistic or Language Analytic approach in order to productively discuss such things, but aiming for as clear a use of terms as possible makes the outcomes all the more suggestive and worthwhile, do they not? It also helps the rest of us to "sweat the fat off our brains" and struggle to get ourselves in better shape.

I look forward to your future postings on these matters.

8, Tim, what comes to my mind in response is that we have deduced things about reality that are coherent and lead to predictions in other, related matters that we can observe.

Robert

I think the nature of reality that we apprehend with our senses or instruments which are extensions of our senses is only part of reality. Somehow the ideals play into reality as well. I'm not proposing a platonic form for the justice ideal, but I think that it is nevertheless part of reality. I also think that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our senses/instruments. But I'm not getting all mushy metaphysical about this. I'm focused on the paradigm changers in history such as Copernicus and heliocentrism. His discovery changed our understanding -- our apprehension -- of reality, but reality itself remained unchanged.

It's things like this that I've been thinking about since reading Magee.