';perception by the senses of object in the visible world can never give us true knowledge. why?';?

Because we can never know if everyone else is perceiving things the way we are, so we don't know if what we are perceiving is how it really is. We also don't 100% know if there is a physical world. We could all be figments of one being's imagination, or brains in a vat. We could all just be sense data. So, the visible world may not even exist - there is no way of knowing.





However, we just have to assume that everyone's perceptions are true to themselves. True knowledge is your own knowledge. Or does true knowledge actually exist?';perception by the senses of object in the visible world can never give us true knowledge. why?';?
because there's more going on here than just what's visible.';perception by the senses of object in the visible world can never give us true knowledge. why?';?
Our senses are flawed. Our minds are flawed. We don't always take everything in. Our observation is affected by preconceived ideas, biases, interests, emotions etc. Two people witnessing the same accident will give very different accounts. One person will notice the red car because they have a red car and it stands out to them. Another will notice a black car because they had a bad experience with a black car. In their shock they may even imagine things that aren't there. Some people are colour blind. There are many factors affecting our ability to take in sensory data accurately.





But what else do we have to go on? What is true knowledge? Is there such a thing?
That's just it, perception. What we see may not be the whole picture or it may even be distorted.





It's like the parable of the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. One grabbed its trunk and said ';It's like a snake.'; One grabbed its tail and said ';It's like a rope.'; And the third grabbed a leg and said ';It's like a tree.';
This question is one of the mostly discussed questions in epistemology and there are contradictory opinions on that. Descartes is one of the best sources on that issue I think.


This statement was similar to the result that he reached after his deep analysis on truth and reality. Descartes was trying to find a solid ground, so that he could build his theory on an undubidable ground. Therefore he first tried to find something that he can be 100% sure about. Perception was not a way to reach the undubidable because if perception was deceiving us from time to time (there are plenty examples of deception of perception), then he couldnt base his theory on things he perceives. There is always the danger that it is deceiving him. Second think he thinks about is that there is always the possibility of being in a dream so he could never be sure that the environment he perceives is real since it was perfectly possible to be in a dream and not to realize it. Because of these two premises about our perception, he concluded that we cannot base our knowledge on perception. Imagine the case of ppl in matrix. Although it was a science fiction, it is not impossible. And this theory, which the movie matrix was based on, has been mentioned in philosophers and called 'brain in a jar' theory. if we would live in matrix or if we were a brain in a jar, we 'would' think that our perceptions by the senses can give us true knowledge however the true knowledge is that you are a body or brain living in a glass jar and perceiving electric signals generated by a simulator. there is no 100% evidence that it is not the case (there cannot be such evidence) therefore perceptions cannot give us true knowledge.

long hair cut