Realism Vs Phenomenalism

Have you ever thought you heard something, but there was nothing there? Have you ever thought you saw someone in the corner of your eye, and when you looked there was no person there? When we look down from a high building on people, do they appear small like ants? Aren't there thousands of occasions when we do misperceive? What is reality and perception? Mainstream science describes reality as "the state of things as they actually exist". So reality is simply: everything we observe. Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world (sapdesignguild.org np). I believe people should base some decisions

How does one not know if there is another aspect of catergorie that exist that we don't know as well as how do we know that our reality is a reality?

8. In exploring the certainty with which people hold their beliefs a researcher proposes that those with more information about the topic will be more certain about their belief about that topic. Half of the participants are given 20 facts about a topic and are asked about their belief about that topic. The other half of the participants are given 5 facts about a topic and are asked about the strength of their belief about that topic.

According to Academic Skepticism theres a flaw in our very basic sense of understanding and observing the univere.They said that our senses of vision ,touch cannot be trusted completely .For eg if we are hearing to a voice (familiar)are we sure that its of friend ,it is possible that he

When a state of probability remains undetermined, we often feel compelled to define it. We desire certainty, so we obtain it through whichever way we see fit, even when it is unattainable or harmful to do so. When we imagine

Do you ever wonder if you know anything for certain? For example, have you ever wondered whether you are truly alive or if life is only a dream one simply cannot wake up from? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). According to Unger’s argument one simply cannot know anything about anything. One cannot know oneself, the world, or others. One does not know pain nor pleasure. One simply does not know anything. Through the use of different methods, however, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world, and others in contrast to what Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism states.

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

An objective theory that predicts future events can only be possible when dealing with the five senses. Once there is a pattern of the same things reoccurring over and over again, a universal law starts to develop. This means that no matter what, some things will always be true, while other things will always be false. One’s beliefs, whatever they may be, have no manner on the facts of the world. Some facts of the world include the sun rising, women being able to carry a baby, and even evolution. Another example is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which describes that when interacting with people, one may need certain information about the person in order to reduce their uncertainty. In the event that one does gain more information about the other person or

This can be challenged as to sit in a lecture you must be certain that you’re sitting in a lecture, but you cannot be certain that you are not actually dreaming, therefore you cannot be certain that you’re sitting in a lecture. P2 – there is no way to be certain that the experiences we perceive to be reality are our reality. Descartes’ argues that there is no way that we can be completely certain that such experiences are not unconscious experiences, “Any experience that strikes me as waking experiences such that I am perceiving the environment in a normal way are indistinguishable from possible dreaming experiences.”

Husserl calls the given in its immediate disclosure the "phenomenon". Derived from the Greek verb "phainomaf', it means to show visibility or to become visible. Phenomenon therefore suggests that which is disclosed, is shown, which is evident. The term Phenomenology was derived from this concept. Philosophy must broach the given or variable in its reality by means of Phenomenology.

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

Furthermore, there are three main aspects which were customarily associated with a science: metaphysical, theoretical and methodological assumptions. Under metaphysical it is believed that to gain scientific status requires the certainty that the subject matter i.e. human thought/ behaviour, is similar to that of other accepted sciences. This could then be true for Psychology, as particularly since Darwin’s suggestion of a continuity between behaviours of humans and other species, behaviour has become more scrutinised. However, this must be assumed in respect of determinism, suggesting predictions could be made. ‘Heisenbergs uncertainty principle’ suggests that when relating evidence of indeterminism within the universe to human behaviour, it proves ambiguous, and with parts of the discipline believing strongly in free will it seems difficult to establish a common ground (Valentine E.R. page 2).