The Problems with Philosophy
Bertrand Russel begins with exploring primary distinction between
appearance (what things seem to be) and
reality (what they actually are) by asking if there is any knowledge that is certain to a level that no reasonable man is allowed to question it or doubt it and just rather believe in it dogmatically?
Implying that nothing is beyond doubt and question; to illustrate Russell uses example of a common table. Although, common sense suggests that we know the color, shape, and texture of a table but a closer observation reveals contradictions; For instance, the colour may change with variance of amount the light is reflected where some parts might appear brighter and some might look white from reflected light, that is, variance in colors is examinable under different lighting setups.
Same is the case with texture, which to the naked eye appears smooth, however through a microcope it reveals "roughness and hills and valleys". So, the naked eye in its immediate sight alone is misleading to say the most. Similarly, the sensation of the table upon placing one's hand on it to feel it also varies depending on how hard is the hand press against the table, or if it is not hand but the arm, or one's face; in each case the sensation changes. The sound also differs depending on what thing strikes the table. With all this in mind, Russell concludes that sense-data (Immediate sensation, sight, colours, sounds, smells, and textures) constitutes appearance which is different from the real object (reality).
Analysis
I think that it's true that naked sense-data is unreliable and deceitful since human sense are quite limited. Human ears can hear only what's in range of 20Hz to 20,000Hz, that is why, earth's hum (under 10Hz), elephant's infrasound (14Hz), and seismic warnings (Earth produces low frequency infrasonic waves before earthquakes, tsunamis, and avalanches, which often animals hear and flee to higher grounds earlier) remain inaudible to human ear. Human eyes can see only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum that means 99.9965% biological blindness. As humans, we remain completely unaware of massive fields of radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolent rays, X-rays, and gamma rays countinously passing through our bodies. The sense-data has limits and human reason is also fallible because of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, that's the exact reason why we should always be intellectually skeptic and humble avoiding intellectual arrogance. Additionally, this knowledge should firstly humbnle us intellectually and secondly, rather than utter denial of ,per se, knowledge, this should have us strive to enlarge this limited scope of understanding, exactly as reasonable people have done it; humans have invented apparatus and tools to see what is invisible to the naked eye, and hear what is inaudible to human ear.
The Problems with Philosophy
The book questions whether matter, defined as a physical object that has intrinsic nature and that exists even when unobserved by human eye, is real. Russell critiques such a view as Berkeley's that denies existence of matter independent of human thought because this can easily slide into solipsism which denies existence of other minds, bodies; humans independent of oberserving subject.
Russell finds basis for knowledge in Rene Descartes's "method of systematic doubt" which makes two fundamental arguments; firstly, doubting is the primary experience or thought that proves existence, and Russell here notices that though Descartes might doubht the physical world, "doubt concerning his own existence was not possible, for if he did not exist, no demon could deceive him. (The "Evil Demon" or malicieux genie, is Descartes's thought experiment, in his book titled Meditations on First Philosophy, that imagines what if the sky, the air, the earth, shapes, and colours, among all other things that seemingly exist are but only the illusions of a powerful demon in our mind who seeks to trap our judgement. Secondly, Descartes's assertion; "cogito ergo sum." (Literally, I think therefore I am.) that as thinking subject, the very act of thinking proves existence of the subject.
Russell then goes beyond these primary Cartesian arguments; weighing independent existence of matter as more rational explanation of reality rather than the "dream hypothesis" and he does this with example of a cat. He says, if a cat is only a collection of sense-data lacking independent being, then how come cat's appetite grows during times it is unobserved, or how acts like moving from one place to another even when unobserved can be explained without saying that it exists independent of human observation.
Analysis
As humans, historically, we viewed ourselves as centre of the universe and the most important beings, for whom everything existed with mere purpose to serve, and the same was told by all major religions. That's why the church had problems with Galileo Galilei when he negated that very claim, and this same arrogantly anthropocentric view of reality is demonstrative of Berkeley's arguments. Such a view, as Russell argues is fated to slide into solipsism making everything beyond observing human subject basically just a dream and therefore insignificant. Most people, even Russell, forgets to place Descartes full quote which is "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum." (Literally, I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.), though he starts his argument from Descartes's systematic doubt. That is, the radical doubt, is primary to Cartesian argument for existence of the self and Russell extends it to the existence of the other beyond the self. Idealism believes that thought is primary and it constructs material reality. Russell negates this claim by counter-arguing Berkeley's assertion that a tree's existence consists of being perceived (esse is precipi), by pointing out the confusion in this logic; when we imagine a person in mind, that doesn't mean the image of the person in mind is the person literally, but rather it is rather just a thought of the person. Therefore, the fact that we must have a "thought" of a tree to know it doesn't mean the tree itself is a thought.
Russell's Epistemological Arguments
Russell thinks of knowledge as derived from "acquaintance and description" distinguishing between direct awareness and the knowledge mediated by facts. He gives example of Bismarck who himself had acquaaintance with his own thoughts and feelings while anyone else who knew him was by description, e.g., the first Chancellor of the German Empire, or through sense-data of his physical appearance. >We can also know truths about things we have never seen, like Julius Caesar, because we understand the descriptions composed of universals we are acquainted with. Russell critiques induction by an example of a chicken which is well fed by a farmer every day and comes to expect food. However, one day the farmer wrings its neck instead. Through this example, he illustrates the "crude expectations of uniformity" (i.e., induction) can be misleading without a deeper understanding of the laws of nature. He further examines the logical laws that are a priori (i.e., knowledge gained through pure reason without needing real world experience.) rather than a posteriori (i.e., knowledge acquired through direct observation, testing, or sensory experience.) exemplifying mathematical truths such as 7+5=12 while noting that the idea of 12 is dependent on adding 7 and 5. He gives example of two men arguing about the date where one might say: "if yesterday was the 15th, today must be the 16th." relying on a general logical principle: "anything implied by a true proposition is true." Furthermore, he defines truth as a correspondence between belief and fact, for instance if Othello believed that Desdemona loved Cassio, the belief in this context would be relation between four terms; Othello, Desdemona, Loving, and Cassio, where if the statement is factual then it is truth. So, basically, a fact is a truth and a belief is a doubt, and belief becomes truth when verified as fact. Then he moves to distinguish between true belief and actual knowledge with an example that "If a man believes the Prime Minister’s name starts with a 'B' because he thinks the PM is Mr. Balfour (when it is actually Campbell-Bannerman), his belief is true but is
not knowledge; because it was deduced from a false premise.
Analysis
Understanding human beings is complex that why narrowing down on specific traits in particular community often leads to stereotyping and Russell's knowledge by acquaintance and description again forwards propositions on limitations of understanding. Inductive logic that moves from effect to cause in one sense, and from identifying a pattern in sample data to draw conclusions already holds that the such a conclusion is never valid; in principle, it can be as strong as large is the sample and as weak as small as the sample. This direct proportionality of inductive reasoning is already inclusive of its limits needing no further criticism on the same basis that it acknowledges already. Though, Russell critiques it to argue for a need to understand natrual laws, which completes the picture. Additionally, a priori knowledge does exist but is primarily rooted in a posteriori, that is, without countable material objects the signifiers for numbers would have been unimaginable. The dates, calendars, months, solar year, and so on are human constructions premised in material existence of the earth, sun, humans and so on. Truth is a statement varified to coresspond with reality and a truth can be identified within constructed parameters, definitions, worldviews, etc., though the truth in absolute sense is rendered myth by the limits of our sense-data and fallible reasoning.
