a lot hinges on what “know” means there. It may be that various intermediaries are involved in perception, but if doesn’t follow from that the intermediaries are known instead of the object of perception—it s a peculiar use of “know”. Ordinary language seems ambiguous on the topic—does one watch a football match, or a TV, or a football match on a TV?
Also the scientific picture involves information being transmitted along a chain. so long as the transmission is accurate, the information is more or less the same at each stage, so there is no stage that is more informative than the others.
Thanks for pointing that out; I had interpreted that ‘know’ in the same sense as the “know” in ‘carnal knowledge’.. information derived from maximally-direct contact.
The wikipedia description certainly seems somewhat self-referential. I might have committed QED since I’m clearly an ‘indirect realist’.
Also the scientific picture involves information being transmitted along a chain. so long as the transmission is accurate, the information is more or less the same at each stage, so there is no stage that is more informative than the others.
Do you intend to imply that the transmission -is- accurate → non lossy? Even within the context of executing a single experiment, I’d have to disagree.
a lot hinges on what “know” means there. It may be that various intermediaries are involved in perception, but if doesn’t follow from that the intermediaries are known instead of the object of perception—it s a peculiar use of “know”. Ordinary language seems ambiguous on the topic—does one watch a football match, or a TV, or a football match on a TV?
Also the scientific picture involves information being transmitted along a chain. so long as the transmission is accurate, the information is more or less the same at each stage, so there is no stage that is more informative than the others.
Thanks for pointing that out; I had interpreted that ‘know’ in the same sense as the “know” in ‘carnal knowledge’.. information derived from maximally-direct contact. The wikipedia description certainly seems somewhat self-referential. I might have committed QED since I’m clearly an ‘indirect realist’.
Do you intend to imply that the transmission -is- accurate → non lossy? Even within the context of executing a single experiment, I’d have to disagree.