Self-study
P1
Physicists are often asked why the image of an object, such as a chair, appears reversed left-to-right rather than, say, top-to-bottom when viewed in a mirror. ███
Phenomenon / Question ·
Mirrors only flip images left-to-right. Why not also top-to-bottom?
Field-of-sight Hypothesis / Answer ·
Something about the axis around which the viewer rotates
No idea what this means. Please god let this not matter.
P2
████████ ████ ██████████ █████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ██ █████ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███
Front-to-back Hypothesis / Answer ·
Mirrors actually reverse the image front-to-back
As if there's another object "inside" the mirror
Critique ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
Hypothesis is based on a false premise. There's no object inside the mirror.
P3
████ ███████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ██████ █████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ █ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █ ███████████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ████
Concession ·
Front-to-back hypothesis has some explanatory power
We usually transform our sense perception into mental constructs of objects. This is why this hypothesis is appealing.
P4
██ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████ █ █████ ██ ███████ ███
Motivations ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
Wants to separate the observer from the phenomenon.
Main Point / Critique ·
Of front-to-back hypothesis
The real explanation of what mirrors do must consider both the mirror and the observer. So, like the field-of-sight explanation?
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
25.
With which one of the █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██████
a
The failure of ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ ████████
The author never suggests an explanation of mirrors is inadequate due to the state of optical equipment.
b
Explanations of what ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████
The author points out that one particular explanation fails because it doesn’t consider what happens when we look into mirrors. But she doesn’t comment on what explanations of mirrors “generally” do.
c
One explanation of ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████
d
The degree to █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
The author never connects the discussion about mental constructs and primary sense perceptions in P3 to having training in science. We have no reason to think people with training are any more or less likely to deal directly with mental constructs than people without training.
e
Considering objects reflected ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████████
The author never comments on a causal relationship between considering objects to be mental constructs and an understanding of how primary perceptions function. Although the author does indicate that our tendency to equate sense perceptions with mental constructs makes the front-to-back explanation intuitively appealing, this doesn’t imply that thinking of objects as mental constructs changes how we understand the functioning of primary sense perceptions.