epistemology : can our senses be trusted? why?

Answer 1

Yes, mainly because what other option have we got? I guess some would say reason is the other option, but the human ability to reason is just as fallible as the human senses. Many a very bright thinker has made many a mistake in his logic. And in terms of living a life on earth, we don't have a choice but to trust our senses. Those of us who chose not to would most likely end up institutionalized.

Answer 2

We know the limitations of our senses, but the problem comes when we try to extrapolate what the senses can perceive into areas where they cannot. For example, the senses are adept at gathering knowledge about the body and there is very little that is unknown about the functions and composition of our bodies. But if we then say that because we cannot perceive the life force, or soul, within the body, therefore the soul doesn't exist, then this is a case of trusting the senses in a dogmatic fashion. The soul exists because without the soul there could be no life in the body. But because the soul is by nature spiritual, not material, the senses are useless in understanding the nature of the soul.

So the senses can be trusted to a point. But trusting the senses as the only means for gathering knowledge is fanaticism.

Answer 3

There is no guarantee whatsoever that the world represented by our senses correspond to an outside reality. Karl Jung pointed out the outside world, as we perceived it, was a creation of the mind, just as dreams were - it's only arbitrarily that most of us believe in matter. Chinese Philosopher Chuang Tse expresses the same idea when he says: Yesterday, I dreamt I was a butterfly. How do I know today I am not a butterfly dreaming he is a man?
Consistency, I suppose is what assures us of reality. But again, the dream world seems to counteract that idea of certainty. When we dream, it doesn't seem strange that we jump from one room to another, from our childhood to our adult life, etc... We don't notice the inconsistencies. So how do you know?
Certainty, of course, is more of a Renaissance to XIXth century philosophy problems. Post modern philosophers have a more open attitude. They didn't feel the need to anchor systems in absolute certainty and had more of a 'Sure enough' approach to reality. That's the continentals. The Anglo-American movement, which was more concerned with science went for the approach of logical and mathematical consistency, but they're more concerned with establishing universal science than assuring a man of his existence.

Answer 4

A close look at the "range" of senses would suggest the obvious limitations !
Taste buds exclude many items just because of limitation.
Smell excludes those fragrances which cannot dissolve in nostrils
Touch is not feather sensitive at all.
Sight, lesser said the better ! !
Audibility, least of the range perhaps in the entire animal kingdom , excepting deaf ones !
And trying to trust with these ill equipped senses, are we out of our senses ? !
Yet, the biggest asset, self-awareness can take us beyond these senses and increase our perception levels much deeper !
Come spirituality in !

Answer 5

Our bodily senses are physical characteristics which became part of the DNA of our species which developed by the evolutionary processes of natural selection. The abilities to sense changes in our environment and our bodies through our senses is crucial to the survival of individuals and the species as a whole. It is in this sense that we necessarily trust our senses.

However, the faculty of reason tells us that the bodily senses are limited and less than perfect-- precisely because they are "designed" to pickup a selected and often small portion of the total spectrum of incoming information from our immediate surroundings. We know from scientific study of the senses that human sensory abilities and performances vary from one person to the next, and taking it to the next level, that the interpretations given to sensations is likewise individually variable. To this extent, we have grounds to distrust our senses until we are able to verify them by the application of scientific methods and are we are able to make logically sound reasonings and judgments about the evidence our senses provide.

We are obligated to be wary of any of the conclusions we reach based solely on the limited evidence we obtain from our senses. Why, because we are participants in the processes of sensation and the perceptions and judgments we make about our bodily sensations is subjective.

TWH09172006

Answer 6

The fact that human life (or indeed life in general) wouldn't have progressed as far as we have speaks volume for the evolutionary value of our senses.

Answer 7

As opposed to what other options? Delusions? Magic? That is all we have to define truth and knowledge, IMHO.

Answer 8

Ontologicaly speaking, yes.