'Our senses are an unreliable source of information about the world, and thus can never provide us with any certainty in the truth of our beliefs'
The senses are a curious thing. They're the fundamental lens through which humanity - the entirety of the human experience - has been surveyed. Without our senses we are nothing. They provide all the input needed to interact with the physical world, and that interaction is crucial for us to enter the abstract plane of thought. How would one contemplate the sound of water, or the sight of birds in flight without having the means to receive sensory input? Senses provide us so very much. But do they provide us certainty? Certainty is an absolute, and I tend to abhor absolutes. They leave no room for possibilities; they brook no argument for that most dynamic of human qualities: the evolution of insight. So, no, I don't believe the senses can provide us absolute certainty in the truth of our beliefs. Though, I am aware they may be all we have. The adage, "make the best of what you have" could very well be all we've got to work with.
Before we go further, I feel it necessary to define what it is we really mean when speaking of our senses. There are the five fundamental, entirely animal, senses with which we perceive our existence: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. But I must also have time to mention another sense: the ephemeral concept of intuition. I believe it is as much a sense as the others. In fact, part of me is very surprised we don't put more stock into such an amazing phenomenon. Perhaps this is because we cannot measure it. We can use a sense to corroborate the other senses, of course. The eye can see the ear, the skin, and the tongue. There exists no simple measurement for the dimension, or location of intuition. So, where the others have physical characteristics with which to associate themselves (eyes for sight, ears for hearing, et cetera); I will posit that intuition's physical representation can be the brain itself. Though we cannot see it, we have no doubt of its existence. Perhaps even the very location of the intuitive organ is close to being found. Dr. Daniel Amen M.D., a well known psychiatrist, has found as part of the largest brain imaging study ever performed, "that females have more activity in the part of the brain responsible for gut feelings and intuition." While this may not prove without a shadow of a doubt the validity of intuition, I believe it represents a critical step in the direction towards recognizing it as a viable method of deriving knowledge from our environment. Needless to say, I won't go into sex-based abilities - as alluded to in the study - I firmly believe those are determined in large part due to social structures, traditions, and particular demands on men and women to fulfill certain roles within our culture. I've known a number of men, alongside women, who have cherished their intuitive ability to make decisions, and form beliefs. These things pertain only vaguely to the determination of whether intuition can be considered alongside the other senses as a mode of gathering information. It is, however, obvious that philosophy is hesitant to consider intuition a sense through which we can obtain knowledge, and this is likely due to the difficulty in quantifying it. It is an understandable precaution, but may prove needless as we progress further in scientific understanding of ourselves. In the above-reference, and others, we are seeing the traditional concepts of knowledge undergoing a renaissance of innovation, and growing exponentially. Our current understanding of the senses could be entirely altered in the very near future. I am extremely hopeful of that.
The five physical senses are only a small window into perception. It can be said that trying to view existence through one's senses is, perhaps, like trying to see a room through only a keyhole. They (the senses) are the most fundamental of portholes into perception. Which is what this is really all about - our perception of the world. Simple tests can prove the fallibility of the senses. Dr. Haha Lung, in his book Mind Penetration, devotes chapters, and many diagrams, towards the limitations of our brain's ability to organize sensory data into meaningful perceptions. It's easy to fool the eyes with optical illusions, and the ears often hear only what they want to hear. Dr. Lung stresses the importance of knowing these weaknesses inherent to our species, and possessing the wisdom to transcend these limits in order to manipulate the world around us. In recognizing that our senses are - by their nature - flawed, we are able to appreciate how they offer us only a limited understanding of the world.
Epistemology questions whether we can ever fully have true knowledge. It wants to know if knowledge is possible. Knowledge is the basis of belief: the world is proven to be round, we know it is round, and we believe it is round. Beliefs are entirely dependent on knowledge, and the senses are the foundation of knowledge. This is where I believe the difficulties arise. The defining of these simple concepts is easy, as any methodical categorization is easy, but putting it all into practice is where the human error becomes glaringly apparent. Our senses are flawed, thus our knowledge can be flawed - creating flawed beliefs. There are literally infinite examples of this process. Stereotypes, religious mores, traditional values, and virtually anything defining the human equation is always, at its most basic level, determined by what our senses have told us about something. It is not difficult to follow the progression of thought here, and consider the horrifying implication that perhaps our entire lives are tainted through faulty perceptive powers. Everything we know has been dictated by what we've observed or been told to observe. The majority of the beliefs stemming from these observations are doled out by society, of course, as the ability to think critically seems to be dying amongst the masses. For the sake of fairness, perhaps it has always been that way. I wasn't alive a century ago, or eight, and the proletariat have likely always been culled and indoctrinated by the beliefs of their so-called betters. Which leads me to my point:
We can be certain of our inefficiency, our faulty perceptive powers, and our penchant for bad decision-making. It's an almost charming predictability; we're always going to screw things up. Sometimes it gets messy - wars, religious crusades, bullying, misinformation - but I believe humanity is always seeking to better its understanding of the universe. We strive to become more than we are. Sometimes this is a difficult thing to have faith in when facing walls of stupidity and intolerance (all formed by erroneous beliefs), but our progression is ongoing. Our beliefs are changing. That is a hopeful thing, and it goes to show that our senses can indeed provide us some certainty. They can provide us a certainty that the human spirit is unquenchable.
Look, binary right or wrong, yes or no, light or dark questions are never satisfying. They aren't satisfying because they often never address the issue in its entirety. Nature does not work in such a way, so why should we force it onto ourselves? Sometimes I wonder if we are not, the lot of us, predisposed towards masochism. We seem intent on bludgeoning ourselves with abstractions again and again. Though, perhaps that is what it is all about. This desire for continual growth, and greater achievement, is part of that indomitable human spirit I'd mentioned above. For us to achieve those goals we must be hard taskmasters to ourselves. In this, Descartes' questioning of what we believe certainly serves a fantastic purpose. He encouraged us to doubt everything, "in order to see if there is some belief that cannot be doubted, we should temporarily pretend that everything we know is questionable." That is a fantastic thought-experiment, and it is through those exercises where we learn that there is no finite right or wrong in the human equation. Humanity's majesty stems from its inefficiencies; in our struggle to achieve, we transcend Hobbes' pessimistic, "life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." Our senses are wrong, yes. They are also right. In admitting that the sense cannot be trusted are we not cutting ourselves off, short-changing ourselves? This isn't a matter of arrogance, or a foolish appeal to the pride of humanity. It's a matter of keeping an always open mind. In my experience, I would rather maintain a hope for humanity despite our weakness than damn us for our shortcomings. Perhaps the entire question seems just a little too thorny for my tastes. It's very much like a paradox where all realms of thought lead only into so-called gray areas.
There may be no truth in our beliefs as dictated through our senses. With this I cannot argue in good faith. I will be among the first in the room to admit our ability to perceive, and create conclusions on those perceptions, is often very limited. Everything should be questioned, actions should be reviewed, and contemplation is something with which we should all feel at least a modicum of familiarity. Today, more than ever, we need to stress the important of self-reflection. I believe, however, that our truth goes so much further beyond the simple measuring of the senses. The human equation is largely ephemeral; it is about our ability to adapt and grow. I cannot admit that we will never know the truth of our beliefs. In doing so, I am uncertain if we would have ever made it so far as we have had we fully acquiesced to the idea.
Bibliography
Amen, Daniel G. "The Dr. Oz Show." Dr. Mehmet Oz. 7 Mar 2013. http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/unleashing-power-female-brain (accessed Feb 24, 2014).
Daniel, Stephen. "Notes for Class Fifteen: Epistemology and Descartes." Texas A&M, (Feb 24, 2014).
Doyle, William The Ancien Regime. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire. 2001.
Lung, Haha Mind Penetration : the ancient art of mental mastery. New York. 2007.
