568:"This conclusion shows that direct realism simply defines perception as perception of external objects where an 'external object' is allowed to be a photon in the eye but not an impulse in a nerve leading from the eye." --- This does not follow at all from what has been said. Further, most direct realists will maintain that you do not perceive light when you perceive an object via light. This is very much like the common genetic fallacy. For one example of a direct realist (about observables) who maintains light itself is unobservable, read Bas C van Fraassen "Constructive Empiricism Now".
495:
ostensible perceivers and generally have many of the properties they seem to have--although they have many more as well." Such a position is consistent not only with direct realism (which, incidentally, may be quite sophisticated), but also with a number of varieties of indirect realism. That is, although I don't want to deny that there is considerable overlap, direct realism need not be naive and naive realism need not be direct. Anyhow, very poor idea.
177:
161:
571:"This conclusion shows that direct realism simply defines perception as perception of external objects where an 'external object' is allowed to be a photon in the eye but not an impulse in a nerve leading from the eye." This is incorrect. For a direct realist, the "external object" is not the photon in the eye or the retinal image before it is translated to the optic nerve; It is the actual object causing a viewer's perception.
226:
205:
22:
314:
666:
objects (or parts/surfaces of physical objects). The author uses the term to mean something that simply cannot be physical objects or parts/surfaces of them. It would be better to use "ideas" or "mental images" to convey that meaning, I think. Alternatively, one could carefully explain one's particular use of 'sense-data' NOT to mean "direct data of the senses."
81:
53:
597:
non-inferential knowledge of material objects. Analytic philosophers are more or less agreed that it was a massive mistake to say otherwise. Locke lead to
Berkeley who lead inexorably to Kant and then it was all down-hill to Hegel and the rest of the German philosophers whose names start with "H"! I strongly recommend emphasizing the opposite point:
91:
420:
is no intermediary regarding perception (such as sense-data) DR is supported by philosophers; naive realism is assumed a base viewpoint and subsequently chewed up by representative realists, and the whole straw man fallacy of conflating the two seems like those dastardly RRs just want to deceive everyone. do the rght thnig sucka st
236:
491:
intermediary, naive realism is the thesis that perception of a mind-independent reality (or the phenomenal character of such perception) is constituted by that reality. One could hold the former thesis but reject the latter thesis. At any rate, I believe that it would be very unfortunate to collapse the distinction.
752:
it appears there is a real possibility that the experts are abandoning all other theories of consciousness as being falsified, including Naieve realism, and that a revolutionary scientific consensus could be forming around what the early participating experts (including Lehar, Smythies, Hameroff... )
665:
Another problem is the use of "sense data," particularly in the first few paragraphs. Sense data are, literally, the direct data of the senses. Thus, without further explanation, a direct realist should not hold that there are no sense data, but that sense data are, generally, identical to physical
475:
Direct and naive realism are distinguished by particular researchers and should therefore not be merged. Naive realism can be argued to constitute a rather unscrutinised position, whereas direct realism has been posited as a full-fledged epistemological stance. Those who argue for direct realism more
419:
There aren't many links but www.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/DR_web.pdf clearly states the differences between direct and naive realism, and so does my philosophy textbook. Some differences: DR is not committed to holding that what we perceive always accurately portrays the world. DR only maintains that there
350:
I would suggest that the sections from the direct realism article that are not already covered by the naive realism article should be integrated into the naive realism article and the direct realism article be redirected there. The reason for this is because the term naive realism is more commonly
451:
They shouldn't be merged, regardless of their similarities (they are very different theories anyway) because other than the reasons stated prior to my input, it is difficult enough for non-philosophers to understand the difference between the concepts without the confusion added by a merge. While
490:
The labels 'direct realism' and 'naive realism' are terms of art. But they are often used by philosophers of perception to pick out very different views. For example, it is sometimes said that whereas direct realism is the thesis that perception of a mind-independent reality does not require any
494:
FWIW, I think the whole idea of merging "Naive
Realism" with "Direct Realism" is wrongheaded. I take "naive realism" to mean something like "Any relatively unsophisticated epistemological view according to which items that seem to be external to ostensible perceivers really are external to such
743:
for several years now, going to conferences, interviewing experts, canonizing their views, and so on. Despite my efforts, I have failed to find many proponents of this view, non that were willing to support them in the survey project. Glen
Sizemore at least participated in some discussion
596:
This is news to me! The first 5 decades of the 20th century were devoted to destroying the view that all we perceive, strictly speaking, are our own sense-data. Today there is a consensus extremely rare amongst philosophers: we are not aware of our own private sense-data; we can have
777:
This article lacks any in-line citations and reads like a weak university essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It is an interesting topic as it spans both philosophy of mind and psychology of perception. I wonder if that can be represented better in the content and style of
346:
There is some overlap between the issues discussed in each article however the naive realism article is far more in-depth. For example, the
Philosophy WikiProject has rated the direct realism article as Start-Class and the naive realism article as B-Class.
342:
The merger was suggested by Srnec on 13th
November 2008. It is clearly not a hot topic, however it is suggested that some kind of merger is required because it is thought that naive realism and direct realism are synonyms.
739:, and even attempted to back their claim up with references to survey data. The only problem is they interpreted the real data completely backwards as I pointed out in reply on that talk page. I've been working on the
662:
The reference to Pierre le Morvan's 2004 paper is confused. le Morvan doesn't say anything about shared ontology or conclude that any neurophysiological results are problematic for direct realism.
826:
324:
831:
748:. But despite my best efforts encouraging him, and the few others I have found, non have been willing to put their neck on the line. As ever more experts contribute to
112:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
836:
811:
168:
63:
699:
that is constructed as a point of view, and later on labeled onto dead philosophers (the safest ones) in order to prove a partially dishonest point? ... said:
816:
846:
801:
292:
282:
806:
821:
851:
602:
Citations would include many of Austin's contemporaries, Stroud, McDowell, van
Fraassen, Putnam (the more recent Putnam) and countless others.
351:
used than the term direct realism, especially in contemporary debates such as quantum mechanics. As a test of this here are some google results
841:
757:. The more people that contribute to this survey, the better we will be able to measure if, indeed, this revolution is taking place or not.
578:
258:
184:
114:
67:
609:
427:
405:
638:
Who is JlAustin? I don't have a problem with whoever he is, but how should we link it? Does he have an existing article I can't find? --
720:
676:
453:
502:
320:
695:
Does this "philosophy" have proponents, or is it just a constructed philosophy used to disprove certain kinds of errors? Like f.ex.
600:``At most Western universities, INDIRECT realism is taught as obviously false, a long-refuted theory in philosophy of perception.
593:"At most Western universities, direct realism is taught as obviously false, a long-refuted theory in philosophy of perception. "
249:
210:
104:
58:
452:
we're at it, why not make epistemology one page? Oh, because that would be stupid. Do not merge these very different stances.
554:
33:
783:
649:
I would assume that the author intends to refer to the philosopher J. L. Austin, for whom there is an article.
628:
582:
481:
465:
441:
409:
613:
431:
389:
724:
680:
506:
457:
21:
779:
762:
385:
39:
654:
313:
716:
672:
627:
The person who wrote this piece has given a really good example of direct realist reasoning. In the
605:
574:
542:
498:
423:
401:
375:
371:
477:
461:
437:
257:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
550:
758:
364:
241:
96:
537:
The following statement's spelling and grammar are far below standard and need to be revised.
360:
704:
639:
526:
398:
Direct realism and naive realism are not synonyms and should therefore not be merged.
356:
176:
160:
795:
735:
Another anonymous dirt bag (128.197.78.165) tried to make the same claim over on the
352:
335:
713:
Many (if not most) contemporary philosophers of perception accept direct realism.
650:
546:
700:
522:
225:
204:
254:
231:
109:
86:
736:
696:
745:
787:
766:
728:
708:
684:
657:
586:
558:
530:
510:
485:
469:
445:
413:
393:
379:
108:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
754:
740:
749:
80:
52:
476:
often than not explicitly differentiate it from naive realism. --
308:
15:
175:
159:
744:
supporting this view, as can be seen in the survey forum
563:
This entry is Far bellow standard and needs to be revised.
253:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
142:
631:it was a POV rant but it is a shame to waste it.
460:) 03:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (moved here --
8:
827:Redirect-Class philosophy of mind articles
199:
139:
47:
832:NA-importance philosophy of mind articles
636:(JlAustin is well known for arguing this)
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
201:
49:
837:Philosophy of mind task force articles
118:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
247:This redirect is within the scope of
102:This redirect is within the scope of
19:
7:
812:Redirect-Class epistemology articles
817:NA-importance epistemology articles
384:I agree that they should be merged
38:It is of interest to the following
847:Mid-importance psychology articles
802:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles
321:Knowledge:Redirects for discussion
14:
807:NA-importance Philosophy articles
822:Epistemology task force articles
312:
287:This redirect has been rated as
267:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
234:
224:
203:
124:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
89:
79:
51:
20:
852:WikiProject Psychology articles
323:on 2013 June 28. The result of
319:This redirect was nominated at
270:Template:WikiProject Psychology
127:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
755:Representational Qualia Theory
658:12:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
616:) 03:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
1:
767:00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
394:04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
261:and see a list of open tasks.
842:NA-Class psychology articles
741:Consciousness Survey Project
788:10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
709:20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
623:The direct realist approach
531:20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
868:
753:have just decided to call
737:talk page on Naive Realism
559:13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
486:13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
470:14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
446:14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
434:) 13:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
293:project's importance scale
685:16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
587:00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
414:18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
286:
219:
183:
167:
138:
74:
46:
629:philosophy of perception
511:01:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
380:09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
729:14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
521:(inserted by ... said:
370:What do other's think?
361:"naive realism" quantum
143:Associated task forces:
250:WikiProject Psychology
180:
164:
105:WikiProject Philosophy
179:
163:
273:psychology articles
130:Philosophy articles
359:(21,800 results),
355:(57,400 results),
185:Philosophy of mind
181:
165:
115:general discussion
34:content assessment
780:Lord Spring Onion
719:comment added by
687:
675:comment added by
617:
608:comment added by
577:comment added by
561:
545:comment added by
501:comment added by
426:comment added by
404:comment added by
367:(1,750 results).
363:(4,720 results),
331:
330:
307:
306:
303:
302:
299:
298:
242:Psychology portal
198:
197:
194:
193:
190:
189:
97:Philosophy portal
859:
731:
670:
603:
589:
540:
517:(random heading)
513:
435:
416:
365:"direct realism"
357:"direct realism"
316:
309:
275:
274:
271:
268:
265:
244:
239:
238:
237:
228:
221:
220:
215:
207:
200:
150:
140:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
99:
94:
93:
92:
83:
76:
75:
70:
55:
48:
25:
24:
16:
867:
866:
862:
861:
860:
858:
857:
856:
792:
791:
775:
714:
693:
579:168.122.245.170
572:
519:
496:
421:
399:
353:"naive realism"
340:
272:
269:
266:
263:
262:
240:
235:
233:
213:
148:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
95:
90:
88:
61:
12:
11:
5:
865:
863:
855:
854:
849:
844:
839:
834:
829:
824:
819:
814:
809:
804:
794:
793:
774:
771:
770:
769:
692:
689:
634:
621:
610:220.233.26.206
592:
518:
515:
478:Morton Shumway
462:Morton Shumway
438:Morton Shumway
436:(moved here --
428:78.151.217.132
406:129.215.149.99
386:FairfaxMoresby
339:
332:
329:
328:
325:the discussion
317:
305:
304:
301:
300:
297:
296:
289:Mid-importance
285:
279:
278:
276:
259:the discussion
246:
245:
229:
217:
216:
214:Mid‑importance
208:
196:
195:
192:
191:
188:
187:
182:
172:
171:
166:
156:
155:
153:
151:
145:
144:
136:
135:
133:
101:
100:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
864:
853:
850:
848:
845:
843:
840:
838:
835:
833:
830:
828:
825:
823:
820:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
800:
799:
797:
790:
789:
785:
781:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
742:
738:
734:
733:
732:
730:
726:
722:
721:24.61.187.129
718:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
690:
688:
686:
682:
678:
677:146.115.126.6
674:
669:Walter Horn
667:
663:
660:
659:
656:
652:
647:
646:
642:
641:
637:
632:
630:
625:
624:
619:
618:
615:
611:
607:
598:
594:
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
538:
534:
532:
528:
524:
516:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
492:
488:
487:
483:
479:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:94.193.214.16
449:
447:
443:
439:
433:
429:
425:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
396:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
377:
373:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
348:
344:
337:
336:naive realism
333:
327:was retarget.
326:
322:
318:
315:
311:
310:
294:
290:
284:
281:
280:
277:
260:
256:
252:
251:
243:
232:
230:
227:
223:
222:
218:
212:
209:
206:
202:
186:
178:
174:
173:
170:
162:
158:
157:
154:
152:
147:
146:
141:
137:
134:
117:
116:
111:
107:
106:
98:
87:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
23:
18:
17:
776:
759:Brent.Allsop
712:
694:
668:
664:
661:
655:Robert Bruce
651:J. L. Austin
648:
644:
643:
635:
633:
626:
622:
620:
601:
599:
595:
591:
570:
567:
562:
536:
535:
520:
503:209.6.114.13
497:— Preceding
493:
489:
474:
450:
418:
397:
383:
369:
349:
345:
341:
288:
248:
169:Epistemology
113:
103:
64:Epistemology
40:WikiProjects
29:
750:this survey
715:—Preceding
691:Proponents?
671:—Preceding
645:J L Austin?
640:Dreamyshade
604:—Preceding
573:—Preceding
541:—Preceding
422:—Preceding
400:—Preceding
334:Merge with
796:Categories
372:Anandavala
264:Psychology
255:Psychology
211:Psychology
121:Philosophy
110:philosophy
59:Philosophy
773:Citations
697:solipsism
778:writing.
717:unsigned
673:unsigned
606:unsigned
575:unsigned
555:contribs
543:unsigned
499:unsigned
424:unsigned
402:unsigned
338:article?
30:redirect
291:on the
701:Rursus
523:Rursus
36:scale.
705:bork²
547:M^A^L
527:bork²
28:This
784:talk
763:talk
746:here
725:talk
681:talk
614:talk
583:talk
551:talk
507:talk
482:talk
466:talk
458:talk
442:talk
432:talk
410:talk
390:talk
376:talk
68:Mind
539::
283:Mid
798::
786:)
765:)
727:)
707:)
683:)
653:--
585:)
565::
557:)
553:•
533:)
529:)
509:)
484:)
472:)
468:)
448:)
444:)
412:)
392:)
378:)
149:/
66:/
62::
782:(
761:(
723:(
703:(
679:(
612:(
581:(
549:(
525:(
505:(
480:(
464:(
456:(
440:(
430:(
408:(
388:(
374:(
295:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
