The inferences to be primarily drawn from a perception are, as to
other members of the group to which the percept concerned belongs.
This is done, in a confused way, by common sense, when it infers the
"real" size or shape of an object from its "apparent" size or shape,
i.e. from the real size or shape of the percept. The "real" size
or shape is a norm, from which the percept of a spectator in a given
relative situation can be inferred. Ordinarily, there is no conscious
inference involved; but conscious inference can be used without
invoking any fresh knowledge. For example, an architect can show the
view of a proposed house from any angle when he knows its measurements,
and for this purpose he uses only systematized common sense; and he
can infer the measurements approximately when he has viewed an actual
house from several angles. The "real" object, as opposed to its
"appearances," is thus something of the nature of a formula by means
of which all sufficiently near "appearances" can be determined. Given
the measurements of a house, we can infer its apparent shape at a given
distance in a given direction. If perception were perfectly accurate
and regular, a few percepts belonging to a given group would enable us
to determine all percepts, actual and possible, belonging to that group.
This is found to be not in fact the case. From seeing a drop of water
with the naked eye, we cannot know that under the[Pg 220] microscope it will
be found to be full of bacilli. When we see a man a hundred yards away,
we cannot tell whether he is handsome or plain. When we can only just
distinguish a person's voice, we cannot tell what is being said. These
are all cases of "vagueness," in a certain perfectly precise sense. In
any group of percepts, those nearer the centre have a many one relation
to those farther off—i.e. two things which look alike from a
distance look different when seen close to. In this sense, the more
distant percepts are vaguer than the nearer ones: the former can be
inferred from the latter, but not the latter from the former.
There is, however, a converse fact—namely, that what may be called
the "regular" law for inferring distant from near appearances may be
interfered with by intervening things. The sun may be visible from a
great altitude when clouds make it invisible from the earth's surface.
Sounds may be stopped by obstacles, and die away completely at a
sufficient distance from their source. Smells die away still more
quickly, and are even more dependent upon the wind. This set of facts
interferes with the inference from near to distant appearances, just
as the former set interfered with the inference from distant to near
appearances.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account