Philosophical Studies

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 161–200 | Cite as

Non-transitive looks & fallibilism

  • Philippe Chuard


Fallibilists about looks deny that the relation of looking the same as is non-transitive. Regarding familiar examples of coloured patches suggesting that such a relation is non-transitive, they argue that, in fact, indiscriminable adjacent patches may well look different, despite their perceptual indiscriminability: it’s just that we cannot notice the relevant differences in the chromatic appearances of such patches. In this paper, I present an argument that fallibilism about looks requires commitment to an empirically false consequence. To succeed in deflecting putative cases of non-transitivity, fallibilists would have to claim that there can’t be any perceptual limitations of any kind on human chromatic discrimination. But there are good reasons to think such limitations exist.


Chromatic appearances Looks Non-transitivity Phenomenal sorites arguments Perceptual limitations Veridical experience Fallibilism Colour Colour perception Perceptual discrimination 



Writing this paper was prompted by an as-always-helpful discussion with Daniel Friedrich. For comments on previous versions of this paper, thanks also to Daniel, to the members of the work-in-progress seminar at SMU, as well as two anonymous referees. A shorter version of this material was presented at the University of Sydney, UC Irvine, and at the Joint Session in Bristol: many thanks to those attending for their questions.


  1. Alston, W. (2005). Perception and representation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30(2), 253–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainard, D. H. (2003). Color appearance and color difference specification. In S. Shevell (Ed.), The science of colour. Oxford, UK: Optical Society of America/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, A. (2001). Intentionalism defended. The Philosophical Review, 110, 199–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. (1997). Colors and reflectances. In A. Byrne & D. Hilbert (Eds.), Readings on color, volume 1: The philosophy of color. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. (2003). Color realism and color science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 3–64.Google Scholar
  6. Carrasco, M., & Ling, S. (2006). When sustained attention impairs perception. Nature Neuroscience, 9–10, 1243–1245.Google Scholar
  7. Carrasco, M., Pestilli, F., & Viera, G. (2007). How do attention and adaptation affect contrast sensitivity? Journal of Vision, 7(7), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuard, P. (2008a). Chromatic appearances in context. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. Chuard, P. (2008b). Non-transitive Looks: why not? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Chuard, P., & Corry, R. (2006). Looks Non-transitive! A Response to Fara. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. De Clercq, R., & Horsten, L. (2004). Perceptual indiscriminability: In defence of Wright’s proof. Philosophical Quarterly, 54, 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fantl, J., & Howell, R. (2003). Sensations, swatches, and speckled hens. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fara, D. G. (2001). Phenomenal continua and the sorites. Mind, 110, 905–935 (initially published as ‘Graff, Delia’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2003). Cortical mechanisms of colour vision. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 4, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman, N. (1951). The structure of appearances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hardin, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal color and sorites. Noûs, 22, 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardin, C. L. (1998). Color for philosophers: Unweaving the rainbow. Philadelphia: Hackett.Google Scholar
  19. Hellie, B. (2005). Noise and perceptual indiscriminability. Mind, 114, 481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilbert, D. (1987). Color and color perception: A study in anthropocentric realism. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, F. (1977). Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Keefe, R. (2000). Theories of vagueness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keefe, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Introduction. In R. Keefe & P. Smith (Eds.), Vagueness: A reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. (1980). Veridical hallucination and prosthetic vision. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58(3), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maund, B. (2003). Perception. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mills, E. (2002). Fallibility and the phenomenal sorites. Noûs, 36(3), 384–407.Google Scholar
  27. Palmer, S. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (2003). Color matching and color discrimination. In S. Shevell (Ed.), The science of colour. Oxford, UK: Optical Society of America/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (2004). Chromatic discrimination. In L. Chalupa & J. Werner (Eds.), The visual neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Raffman, D. (2000). Is perceptual indiscriminability nontransitive? Philosophical Topics, 28(1), 153–175.Google Scholar
  31. Sainsbury, M., & Williamson, T. (1997). Sorites. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Travis, C. (2004). The silence of the senses. Mind, 113, 57–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Williamson, T. (1990). Identity and discrimination. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wright, C. (1975). On the coherence of vague predicates. Synthese, 30, 325–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, C. (1987). Further reflections on the sorites paradox. Philosophical Topics, 15, 227–290; reprinted in Keefe, R., & Smith, P., (eds.), Vagueness: A reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yablo, S. (2002). Could, woulda, shoulda. In T. Szabó Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations