Hello, I was surfing on the net today and found an interesting claim:

"We see and understand things not as they are, but as we are."

What do you guys think, agree or disagree?

Nulla in mundo pax sincera
"Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth." - Albert Camus

old news.
can't see your age, can't figure out why you haven't heard about this.

i agree with the claim,
check this video. it offer more further illustration.

grammar mistake is intentional, grammar nazis need their entertainment.

I find that statement to be only half correct. I'd rephrase it as follows:
We see things as we are, but we can understand things as they are.

Examples:
If we look at an object we don't see a bunch of atoms yet we can understand that it is just that.
If we look at a surface we see a colour, but we can understand that it is actually light with a certain wave length reflected into our eyes.

Conclusion:
Our understanding isn't quite as limited as our perception.

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]

Quote from Dissidence

I find that statement to be only half correct. I'd rephrase it as follows:
We see things as we are, but we can understand things as they are.

Examples:
If we look at an object we don't see a bunch of atoms yet we can understand that it is just that.
If we look at a surface we see a colour, but we can understand that it is actually light with a certain wave length reflected into our eyes.

Conclusion:
Our understanding isn't quite as limited as our perception.

As our understand increases, what happens to perception? Does it change or stay somewhat the same? (Because the atoms are still unseen and same with the wavelength)

Nulla in mundo pax sincera
"Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth." - Albert Camus

Quote from Dissidence

I find that statement to be only half correct. I'd rephrase it as follows:
We see things as we are, but we can understand things as they are.

Examples:
If we look at an object we don't see a bunch of atoms yet we can understand that it is just that.
If we look at a surface we see a colour, but we can understand that it is actually light with a certain wave length reflected into our eyes.

Conclusion:
Our understanding isn't quite as limited as our perception.

That wasn't what the sentence is about. The sentence is talking about confirmation bias. Try wiki-ing it.

And I really have to refute what you just said. What we understand IS completely dependent on what we see things as - in the case of colours and atoms - experimental data which supports a hypothesis. No way can a scientist pluck out some random hypothesis from a sky which isn't rigorously tested using the scientific method. We 'see' the data gained from the experiments that was designed, then 'decide' whether or not we establish that hypothesis as fact.

Quote from Dissidence

I find that statement to be only half correct. I'd rephrase it as follows:
We see things as we are, but we can understand things as they are.

Examples:
If we look at an object we don't see a bunch of atoms yet we can understand that it is just that.
If we look at a surface we see a colour, but we can understand that it is actually light with a certain wave length reflected into our eyes.

Conclusion:
Our understanding isn't quite as limited as our perception.

Isnt it the other half from what you stated that is the point of the claim, the attributes we arbitrary attribute to things/people are reflections of ourselfs rather than the facts we know about it.

"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown"

Quote from kawaiiusagichan

Quote from Dissidence

I find that statement to be only half correct. I'd rephrase it as follows:
We see things as we are, but we can understand things as they are.

Examples:
If we look at an object we don't see a bunch of atoms yet we can understand that it is just that.
If we look at a surface we see a colour, but we can understand that it is actually light with a certain wave length reflected into our eyes.

Conclusion:
Our understanding isn't quite as limited as our perception.

That wasn't what the sentence is about. The sentence is talking about confirmation bias. Try wiki-ing it.

And I really have to refute what you just said. What we understand IS completely dependent on what we see things as - in the case of colours and atoms - experimental data which supports a hypothesis. No way can a scientist pluck out some random hypothesis from a sky which isn't rigorously tested using the scientific method. We 'see' the data gained from the experiments that was designed, then 'decide' whether or not we establish that hypothesis as fact.

My point was that perception alone is not sufficient to see things as they are. Sorry if you misunderstood, I wasn't very clear on that. Of course scientist apply perception to reach their conclusions but it is also coupled with deduction. You can gather all the scientific data you want. if you can't interpret it, it's useless.

So, about this confirmation bias. It's basically how conspiracy theorists see evidence for their conspiracies where there is none just because they want to see it so very badly, right?
If so, I would say it's something that can be suppressed if you know it's there. You can force yourself to be unbiased. So the OP statement isn't necessarily true.

Quote from chineserider

As our understand increases, what happens to perception? Does it change or stay somewhat the same? (Because the atoms are still unseen and same with the wavelength)

Well, I don't think we can expect our senses to evolve any time soon. So in the meantime we're stuck with using devices to enhance our perception. I do believe since recently there is a microscope that can see atoms.

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]