1. What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion? What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"?
How do we know that objects around us are real and not only in our imagination? And if there is a real object what kind of object it is and how can we distinguish it from other objects? This is, in my opinion, the main reason why Russell chooses to introduce the notion “sense data”. To know if an object is real or not we can use our senses to gain an understanding about it, and therefore use our vision, hearing and tactility for example. Sense data responds to the characteristics we perceive when we use our senses in examining an object. Those characteristics could respond to colors, sounds, smells or the feeling of a surface, like smooth or soft. The sense data of an object is individual for everyone, what I perceive as a sense data doesn’t necessarily correspond to the same in another persons mind. What kind of sense data a person perceives can in many cases depend on earlier experiences. If I, for example, have seen a similar object before I may experience it in another way than someone who hasn’t seen it before, I may have some preconceptions about it. The color I define as black could correspond to dark blue if you ask someone else, and it depends a lot of the person’s point of reference.
2. How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?
A statement is often used when we try to describe an object, a situation or a person. “The Earth is the forth planet from the sun”, is one type of statement. When you make a statement about something you have to be able to prove that your statement is true if anyone questions it. A statement comes with the requirement that it need to be backed up evidence, knowledge in the form of hardcore facts. A proposition on the other hand does not require the same need for evidence because it’s often used while guessing. When you define something as a proposition it can be something said about a person or a future situation we actually know nothing about. We know that it exists but we don’t everything about it and might not be able to prove it. The way, which these two words differ from other verbal expressions, is that they are based on some kind of knowledge. A statement requires total knowledge and a proposition some form of knowledge. Other verbal expressions can be used only based on earlier experience or rumors for example, and not based on knowledge.
3. In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?
Russell introduces the notion “definite description” and refers to a phrase of the form “the so-and-so”. This form refers to descriptions that are more than just a noun. Just the expression “a girl” is not a definite description since it doesn’t say anything about the girl, it could refer to any random girl. But if we would say “the girl with the blue eyes and the red hat”, this expression would be a definite description. Now we know a lot more about the specific girl and might be able to distinguish her from other girls. Definite descriptions may differ from one person to another. Someone who knows a person quite well might have a different definite description than someone who just heard rumors and jumps to conclusions. Negative definite descriptions can stop people from getting to know a person even though they don’t know if the descriptions are true or not. Descriptions can make people judge each other without any real knowledge, so it’s best to choose the words carefully.
4. In chapter 13 ("Knowledge, Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's presentation?
You read an article in a newspaper and tell your friends about it. Since you think the newspaper is a credible source, you now believe that you have knowledge about the subject in the article. Some of your friends don’t question you and now believe that they also have knowledge about the subject in matter. But one of your friends thinks the article seems unreliable and questions the original sources. You answer that you don’t know where the newspaper got their facts. The problem is that the knowledge in this article could be based on a false belief and everything can be untrue. A belief of something cannot be considered to be based on knowledge. A belief is just a belief and nothing more. A less experienced reader may believe everything the newspaper writes even though it can be based on beliefs.
When you talk about self-evident you might believe that it’s absolutely true. But you can never be certain that it’s actually true, there’s no guarantee. Sometimes when you jump from facts to judgments it’s a possibility that you make a mistake, an error. A judgment doesn’t need to refer to the facts and therefore you can’t tell that it’s true. This was two problems Russell raised.
f
Regarding your explanation on knowledge (question 4). Do you believe that there is a lack of critical thinking in todays society? Should we be more alert in regards to the truth of certain "knowledges"? Russel talks about probable opinion as the case when someone bases their beliefs in wrongly based facts. That seems to be the case a lot today. People are just plain wrong in their beliefs and knowledge. But who should be the one who tells them they are wrong if they don't believe you? In that case, your belief could be just as wrong (if seen from the other persons perspective).
SvaraRaderaI do believe that sometimes there's a lack of critical thinking. Sometimes it can be easy to get caught up in something that it is difficult to see it from a different perspective. As a mentioned in my most resent reflection, I wrote about the issue with the theories that were the foundation of the methods used to treat Thomas Quick. The methods were based on theory that now, some years later, was revealed as false. There were many people really believing in those methods although there were studies showing the opposite. It can be difficult to leave your theories and realize they are wrong. I think that if a person really believes something it's difficult to tell them otherwise, if they don't want to acknowledge the truth.
RaderaI now have a question for you.
How do get a person to realize that their knowledge is based on false facts if they truly believe it's the truth?
Hello! I also would like to comment regarding your answer for the fourth question, as it was an interesting explanation you had there!
SvaraRaderaYou wrote that "a belief of something cannot be considered to be based on knowledge. A belief is just a belief and nothing more."
But what do you think about the thought that knowledge always gets updated as society develops and understands things better and better, as time goes by? Can we then be certain at any moment at all that there ever is a fixed statement of knowledge, and be able to clearly differentiate it from belief?
In my blog post, I stated that "knowledge will always be a belief".
During this last week, I have had difficulties trying to figure out where the line actually is between belief and knowledge. I came to realize that those two might actually just be the same thing. The difference might be that a belief is a statement that the majority of people find false, and knowledge is the statement that the majority of people find true. So the two are basically highly dependent on what the contemporary people themselves believe, and not actually representing the reality.