How do I write a good philosophy research paper?

Question

What I want to try to prove is that knowledge based on observation, is simply knowledge based on observation and that observation can only be based on perception, of which, perception is not an absolute. Perception can be flawed, therefore our knowledge can be flawed. So, how do we "know" what we believe we "know"?

So, how would I go about writing this type of research paper? What philosphers or concepts would I reference, and what would be some arguements against my stance that I would have to provide rebuttals for?

Answer 1

To understand the lairs in perception, you have to have multiple perceptions of your own. If you do percieve something that someone else percieves differently you just proved the slight of hand in perception, revealing the flaw, and can now make an argument about flaws in observation knowledge. You can take an easy example, the perception of god. Every religion and person has some perception of this concept and claim there perception of god is perfect. Add in perfection is in the eye of the beholder, so you can take what religous people see and then point out the differences in there perceptions, point out the flaws in that perception and there you go. You would have to look at multiple religions for this and then figure out there flaws, easier said than done.
Another argument is the observation of a lie, illusions, or false knowledge. You might be able to swing the world is flat observation, how slavery was thought to be acceptable to some, or many other scientiffic observations over the years that have been unlearned. ( The more dark or touchy the subject the better you will be during rebuttals, no one wants to argue slavery, but be carefull with god philosophies, they can back fire if your not careful )
How do you know what you believe you know? When all differen't perceptions of an observation come to a single truth or knowldge that can't be denied. Example, the world is round, there is a sun, you yourself are now alive. The key to observation knowledge is to have multiple observations by many observers with differen't perceptions.
As of arguments rebuttals, try to write you paper in a way that has logic traps, like using the world is flat with a the world is round counter. Poke as many holes in your own work, then fill it all in. As of philosophers or concepts I do not know.
Philosophy is one of those things that a simple mind can over complicate as well as a complicated mind can simplify. Work your paper in a spot that acknowledges those types of perceptions and you will be better off. If all else fails, paradoxical logic can help if used correctly. Example: how many perceptions does it take to get an exact truth from observation knowledge, there is no logical answer, only guesses based on scenarios, leaving you open to place harder scenarios in there that no one wants to argue, like the god concept, you can argue about god forever, look at the human race and understand that.
I hope something in here helps.

Answer 2

we see something and its marked into our brain
my teacher drawing our the way hail is made made me pass the test on precipitation

most likely its just becuase we can remmeber the way it was shown

we dont know if we actually know what we know we just pretend or agree in what slightly makes sense we cant really know but lets say in class 10 kids said the apple was red because "it was gods favorite color" or that red is evil and so was the apple that eve gave adam

now we know thats not true but i remember fighting with my friend in 2nd grade on ratther or now tomatoes were fruit or vegetable

i still think its a fruit point is i have no clue

pick points out on your education that u question
say u asked a 13 year old refrence me
jsut fight i always debate and win against teachers and yet i still give my english teacher a 3 page report about nothing important

Answer 3

Ever hear of the story about the 5 blind men and the elephant? None of them had any knowledge of an elephant so they tried to understand what it was. Each approached the elephant from a different direction. The first took hold of the elephant's tail and said "now I understand, the elephant is like a rope." The second took hold of the elephant's ear and said "no brother, the elephant is like a great fan." The third took hold of the elephant's leg and said "how can you be so silly the elephant is like a tree trunk." The fourth took hold of the elephant's trunk and said "no no the elephant is like a hose." And the fifth walking into the elephant's side said "but you all must admit that the elephant is like a great wall."

Answer 4

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

everyone reads/refers to this source for a reason.