>Scientists know how sight works because of how light reflects off the lens of the eye
>They know this because they can see this
ehhhh, does anyone else see the problem with this? Doesn't the 'seeing' precede the examination of the 'seeing'? Therefore how can we trust this scientific examination as to how sight works?
You are on the literature board, retard.
This is Philosophy related, thanks.
Go back to where you came from
philosophy is also discussed here, you got caught being a little creepy man havent you?
All 'knowledge' is ultimately contingent upon faith, but not all faiths are equal
This. You can call me utilitarian but I always go with the most practical faith, what is most likely. So I do trust our senses, otherwise you have nothing to work with.
Wow what an incredible thinker you are
I am not. I have no time to think deep as I am busy with working and keeping my own company up. Life is good so no worries
You do realize that Goethe and Schopenhauer had a big part in developing the phenomenology of sight into something like our modern understanding of it?
You can have analytical knowledge of optics prior to any observation of lenses in the eye
Copernicus figured out heliocentrism before he could observe it just by fixing errors in Ptolemy, for example
"Concepts" are prior to any kind of empirical knowledge
>when philosocuck attempts to STEM
Both of you have entirely misunderstood the OP.
Look up Goethe on theories of colour and vision.
But I'm saying you can trust empirical knowledge precisely because of analytical knowledge
Isn't that his concern? Please explain if not
>I didn't read Plato
Literally book 6 of Republic. Google plato's "divided line"
You say this as if light refraction and the neurology behind inner eye reactions to said light can't be quantified, repeated and thoroughly tested.
In your worldview, explain selective colorblindness and why it repeats in specific color ranges according to genetics, and describe the precise mechanism by which the eye prevents the gathering of valid information about its own internal workings. If you can't, you have little more than a conspiracy theory.
The scientific account for eyesight is not sufficient because it relies on what we perceive and its seemingly causal actions to explain sight. Perceiving light going into the eye/lens and examining photons does not provide a proper account of what 'seeing' is, rather, it only provides an account of what it is we are actually 'seeing'.
Do you understand?
Why is everyone suggesting different figures without actually giving arguments?
Learn how to think for yourselves, morons.
Please think about your post before you click the burgers
I understand the argument, but it's honestly pretty facile. Hume argued along much the same lines and got thoroughly btfo'd by Kant.
>inb4 you ask me to spoonfeed you details one of the most well known debates in the history of Western philosophy
Read a book, you fucking nerd
I've read a bunch of Hume but never read him on sight, also, I don't like Kant, why? Because he was blown the fuck out multiple times, especially by Quine.
>2 out of 3 suggest looking at Goethe
>all these different names too complicated!
Maybe check out some Goethe? Might be a waste of time for you though.
Fuck off, retard. I have read both Faust and the Sorrows of Young Werther.
Why do you retards all type like effeminate men?
Learn how to have a discussion instead of linking to other thinkers who do your thinking for you.
Plebeian retard.
If you don't see how Hume's arguments on sense perception and empiricism apply to sight then I don't know how to help you
Epic argument.
Allow me to sum up what you have said throughout the entire thread:
>I don't know how to help you
Thanks, retard!
>Scientists know how sight works because of how light reflects off the lens of the eye
Scientists don't know how sight works, specifically how information travels through the optic nerve and is processed by the brain. The mechanisms involving chemical reactions are too slow and do no account for the transformation of the virtual image (which should be upside down) into our right side up world.
Again check out his theories on vision, although maybe not bother desu.
I literally have his book 'Theory of Colours' on my shelf and is due to be read, retard.
Learn how to have a discussion.
This is retarded, check out pic related. There are mysteries but not where you think.
I gave a suggestion and you flounced around it, it was never a discussion. I sincerely hope you read it and understand it, but I won't get those hopes up.
1)Close your eyes
2)Open your eyes
How many theoretically possible reasons could there be for the differences between 1 and 2?
I will read it and take a shit in it just to piss you off.
I am not even joking either.
>this user doesn't realize he's trapped in language
Oh no. Please do not stick your fingers in an electric socket too it would be too much.
I'll stick them in your cunt instead.
Yes, I can tell you are a woman.
>this user doesn't realize he's trapped in language
>this user doesn't realize he's more trapped without it
>when an adolescent sperg "writes tough" and overcompensates for his own insecure masculinity
Good thread, loved every laugh
>>when an adolescent sperg "writes tough" and overcompensates for his own insecure masculinity
Projecting?
>philposting
philposting is the cancer that's killing this board. go back to your containment.
>he projects so often he instantly assumes others are projecting
lol don't hurt me manly man