Theme 1: Theory of Science

1. Sense Data

Russell uses the term sense-data to things that are immediately known in sensation. That is, the constituents in a sensation. For example, while experiencing a table we experience the color, smell, shape, roughness et cetera.  The experience of being aware of all these things is the sensation, and the constituents of this sensation – such as the smell – is a sense-datum. The table, which we don’t actually know even exists, he calls a ”physical object”. However, the physical object can’t just consist of sense-data, since if we put the table under a big cloth, the table would cease to exist because we would no longer see it, smell it and so on, and the cloth would magically soar in the air. 

Another reason as to why we should secure a physical object with qualities – in addition to sense-data – is that we want the same object for different people. Even though most of us experience a color or a smell pretty much the same way they will still differ slightly. Thus no fact about an object can really be self-evident to more than one person. A question raised in this subject of sense-data is what the nature of a physical object has which persists in lieu of our own perceptions of it. I think that this is quite interesting in the sense that we should be careful about what is a “fact” and what we might perceive to be facts and/or beliefs based on our senses, or beliefs based on other people’s sense-data since they can differ slightly.

2. Proposition and Statement of fact

Even though we conduct a hundred experiments and get the same result every time, we still can’t know that we will get the same result the 101th time. A result that is known to be true, but that we can’t know for sure to be true every time. Therefore it is suitable not to make the conclusion that the experiment has and absolute truth/result, but rather propose that an experiment will have a certain result. The proposition can later on be examined and tested which might yield the same, or different results. If it turns out that a large amount of tests and testers get the same result, it is approaching a statement of fact. Unlike other verbal expressions, propositions and statements of facts are based on some kind of knowledge that can be tested, not only knowledge gained by rumors, sense-data or other people’s experience and so on.

3. Definite Description

The “knowledge by acquaintance” would be knowledge gained using our sense-data, experiences, whereas “knowledge by description” would be knowledge learned by verbally from other people or reading about something for example. While describing an object Russell compares the ambiguous (“a so-and-so”) with the definite description (“the-so-and-so”, in singular). The description “a man” would be an ambiguous description (“a so-and-so”) because it is widely applicable and not at all specific, whereas a description of Jesus that would be something like “the man who walked on water and got crucified” would be a definite description (“the so-and-so”). If the fables in the Bible actually took place that is.  

4. Problems in Theory of Knowledge (epistemology)

Almost everything that we know has a big risk of being false, and most of what we know are just probable opinions since the truth is seldom self evident in the highest degree. And there is always a risk that we unknowingly alter the facts and make it into our own versions, or draw our on conclusions from a small amount of facts.

”If a man believes that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B, he believes what is true, since the late Prime Minister was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. But if he believes that Mr. Balfour was the late Prime Minister, he will still believe that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B…”

Even though knowing that the last name should start with a ”B”, it is not enough to constitute knowledge since it could be applicable to many different people, and might lead to fallacious conclusions.  The knowledge of ”starts with a B” is more more of  ”a so-and-so” description/knowledge and should not be considered true knowledge, even if the conclusions might me correct.