1. What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?
In the beginning in chapter one, Russell describes the sense data as “things that are immediately known in sensation”. It could be things such as color, a smell or a specific feeling that are known to us.
He explains the sense data and compares it with a physical object. Even if two,or more, persons sees an object, for instance a brown cube, these people will see the same physical object, but receive two different sense data.
2. What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?
The proposition means that somethings are explained by a person based on some facts but also much on the person's experience or knowledge. This is always common when people try to explain some facts with own words. A statement of fact however is just what it is called, a statement of fact without any own additional words.
In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?
That means you only need to be aware of the sense data of an object, a place you are at, or anything about a certain person. With a "Definite description", you mean a word or a phrase that in any way describes one of these three things.
In chapter 13 ("Knowledge, Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's presentation?
Russell believes that true faith is the same as knowledge. Russell also says that all the knowledge we have about the truth always contains a certain amount of doubt. Therefore, one can question whether it really can be no real knowledge of any kind, or only a belief in true knowledge.
It's interesting that you write "Russell believes" because I think that formulation shows that you've understood the meaning of this chapter. I think (or believe) that we must look upon knowledge as what we truly believe is truth. But as engineers and perhaps in the future, scientists, it's important for us to be able to show how we came to the conclusion of the true belief. If we come to a conclusion through fallacious reasoning, well then it should be easy to prove us wrong if we cannot lay forward a valid description of reasoning to our arguments. It's just like when a mathematical statement is an axiom until proof of how it is true turns it into a mathematical theorem. One example of such is the Pythagorean equation which is a mathematical theorem.
SvaraRaderaI think your interpretation on Russel's view on knowledge is interesting, mainly because it's approximately the same conclusion i got from his text. The question; "can real knowledge exist" feels both abstract and hard to grasp. It would be intriguing to hear what your take on the subject is? Do you agree with Russel, that true knowledge is impossible to achieve?
SvaraRadera