poke, interesting that you’re talking about the middle ground between skepticism and the infallibility of sense data, which is the sort of “defeasible warrant” idea—we DO take our sense data as a starting point (or, as you note, we take a theory as our starting point—though where did the theory come from, ultimately, but somebody’s taking his sense data seriously and then interpreting them?) - but if we find a conflict, either among our sense data or between ours and somebody else’s, we reduce our trust in our sense data (we don’t just toss them out). People are starting to apply this line of thinking not just to straight epistemology but to ethics (and even aesthetics!).
poke, interesting that you’re talking about the middle ground between skepticism and the infallibility of sense data, which is the sort of “defeasible warrant” idea—we DO take our sense data as a starting point (or, as you note, we take a theory as our starting point—though where did the theory come from, ultimately, but somebody’s taking his sense data seriously and then interpreting them?) - but if we find a conflict, either among our sense data or between ours and somebody else’s, we reduce our trust in our sense data (we don’t just toss them out). People are starting to apply this line of thinking not just to straight epistemology but to ethics (and even aesthetics!).