Skip to main content
Log in

Perceiving Empirical Objects Directly

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to defend the claim that there is such a thing as direct perception, where by ‘direct perception’ I mean perception unmediated by theorizing or concepts. The basis for my defense is a general philosophic perspective which I call ‘empiricist philosophy’. In brief, empiricist philosophy (as I have defined it) is untenable without the occurrence of direct perception. It is untenable without direct perception because, otherwise, one can't escape the hermeneutic circle, as this phrase is used in van Fraassen (1980). The bulk of the paper is devoted to defending my belief in direct perception against various objections that can be posed against it. I discuss various anticipations of my view found in the literature, eventually focusing on Ian Hacking's related conception of `entity realism' (Hacking 1983). Hacking has been criticized by a number of philosophers and my plan is to respond to these criticisms on behalf of entity realism (or more precisely on behalf of the claim that direct perception is a reality) and to then respond to other possible criticisms that can be launched against direct perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Culp, S.: 1994, ‘Defending Robustness: The Bacterial Mesosomes as a Test Case’, in D. Hull, M. Forbes and R. M. Burian (eds), Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 46-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F.: 1969, Seeing and Knowing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F.: 1993, ‘Conscious Experience’, Mind 102, 263-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsamahi, M.: 1994, ‘Could Theoretical Entities Save Realism?’, in D. Hull, M. Forbes and R. M. Burian (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 173-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.: 1984, ‘Observation Reconsidered’, Philosophy of Science 51, 23-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R.: 1999, ‘Mesosomes: A Study in the Nature of Experimental Reasoning’, Philosophy of Science 66, 289-309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M.: 1990, ‘Theory, Intervention and Realism’, Synthese 82, 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner R. and Pierson: 1995, ‘Hacking's Experimental Realism: An Untenable Middle Ground’, Philosophy of Science 62, 60-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.: 1994, ‘Hacking's Experimental Realism’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24, 395-412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmuller, W.: 1976, The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warnock, G. J.: 1965, ‘Seeing’, in Robert J. Swartz (ed.), Perceiving Seeing and Knowing, University of California Press, Los Angeles pp. 49-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar S.: 1988, Science: The Very Idea, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hudson, R.G. Perceiving Empirical Objects Directly. Erkenntnis 52, 357–371 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005528702057

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005528702057

Keywords

Navigation