SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
 número60Una defensa genealógica del no purismo en la justificación epistémicaLa aserción dialógica como unidad mínima de conocimiento índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Tópicos (México)

versión impresa ISSN 0188-6649

Resumen

POSTLETHWAITE, Carlos A.. Seeing as We Cannot. Tópicos (México) [online]. 2021, n.60, pp.75-102.  Epub 23-Feb-2021. ISSN 0188-6649.  https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i60.1118.

The belief that Jastrow’s duck-rabbit (J) is both a duck-head and a rabbit-head drawing violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), as does the belief that J seems to be something independent of all the ways J can seem. Call the former belief B1 and the latter B2. I argue that B1 and B2 are rational, though contradictory beliefs, and conclude that we must reassess the LNC’s status of being a fundamental requirement for rationality. In contrast with B1 and B2, our experiences that correspond to said beliefs do comply with the LNC. That is: we cannot see J as both duck and rabbit at the same time (E1), nor does J seem something independent of the ways J can seem (E2). Since there is no satisfactory explanation for why we are not able to see J as the contradictions E1 or E2―even though our corresponding beliefs about J are the contradictions B1 and B2―I propose that the LNC is merely an empirical hypothesis concerning the limits of our perception.

Palabras llave : perception; cognition; true contradictions; law of non-contradiction; cognitive penetrability of perception; perceptual restrictions.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )