[hist-analytic] Danny's Latest
danny.frederick at tiscali.co.uk
Sat Sep 5 10:19:32 EDT 2009
Okay, you need not respond. But the things you assert here are some of the
things I am impugning.
You assert: 'we do identify actual colors (conceived commonsensically) this
But the thrust of my last message was that the most you are entitled to say
is that some of us think we do. Further (this is a separate point), as I
said in an earlier mail, the considerations I have raised seem to me to cast
doubt on whether there can be such a thing as the actual colour (conceived
commonsensically). We can talk of actual wavelengths of light, etc. but the
notion of an object's actual colour (as 'colour' is pre-scientifically
understood), seems to lead us into paradoxes.
You say: 'it is always possible, epistemically, for us to be in error in a
particular case___But it doesn't follow from this that we are in error in a
I agree. But it does raise the question of whether we can know that we are
in error in a particular case. It is in our answers to that question
(amongst others) that we disagree.
You ask: 'How do you discover whether the actual color of a wall, say, is
the same as the color in one of the color chips in a paint store's
>From what I said a moment ago it should be clear that I do not think that I
(or anyone else) can discover that. I will decide whether the two colours
are close enough for my purposes by comparing them and by asking other
people to do the same (I will not trust to my judgement alone, unless I have
You ask: 'Don't you know that skeptical doubts can be raised almost
Actually, I think they can be raised EVERYWHERE. But that is just a fact. We
should try to come to terms with facts, not pretend that they are not there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hist-analytic