Is direct realism a convincing account of perception?
AQA A-Level Philosophy | Paper 1 | 2027 Predicted Paper | Mark Scheme Question 5
Question 5
Is direct realism a convincing account of perception?
[25 marks]
What is expected in the answer?
This is a 25-mark evaluative question, weighted AO1 = 5 marks and AO2 = 20 marks. Students need to explain direct realism accurately, but most of the essay should assess whether it survives the specified arguments from illusion, perceptual variation, hallucination and time-lag, using objections, responses and reasoned judgements throughout.
There is unusually strong AQA precedent for this predicted question. AQA’s 2020 Paper 1 asked “How convincing is direct realism?”, also for 25 marks. Its official mark scheme rewards sustained argument, strong versions of arguments and counterarguments, and explicit judgements about which objections carry the greatest weight. The current specification still defines direct realism as the view that the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties, and specifies illusion, perceptual variation, hallucination and time-lag as the relevant issues.
Levels of response
Marks | Descriptor |
21–25 | A sustained argument with clear intent throughout. Knowledge is detailed and precise. Arguments and counterarguments are presented in strong forms, integrated into the reasoning, and weighed through ongoing judgements. The overall conclusion is clear and robustly defended. |
16–20 | A clear and largely sustained argument. Knowledge is detailed and generally accurate. Arguments and counterarguments are developed and balanced, with reasoned judgements and a clear conclusion, although precision or evaluation may be inconsistent. |
11–15 | A clear attempt to answer the question through argument. Relevant knowledge is mostly accurate and some genuine evaluation occurs, but balance, integration or weighting may be uneven. |
6–10 | Some argument is present, but it is not fully coherent. Relevant objections are identified but may be juxtaposed rather than evaluated. There are gaps or imprecisions. |
1–5 | Limited relevant knowledge with little sustained argument. The answer may be largely descriptive, one-sided or fragmented. |
0 | Nothing written worthy of credit. |
These bands closely follow AQA’s actual 2020 mark scheme for its direct realism 25-marker.
Indicative content
Students do not need to include every point below. A stronger response may select three or four arguments and investigate them thoroughly rather than produce a catalogue of objections.
Direct realism
Students may establish that direct realism claims:
the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
mind-independent objects exist independently of whether anyone perceives or thinks about them
perception is therefore direct in the sense that it is not mediated by a separate mind-dependent object such as sense-data.
AQA’s current specification gives this definition and then requires the four arguments below and responses to them.
A useful overall strength of direct realism is its apparent simplicity. When someone sees a table, the theory says that what they are directly perceiving is the table itself rather than a private intermediary.
It may also appear to avoid the external-world scepticism associated with indirect realism. If we are directly aware of mind-independent reality, there is no veil of mind-dependent sense-data that must somehow be shown to represent an inaccessible external world.
This is also recognised in AQA’s official 2020 indicative content as an epistemological reason for finding direct realism convincing.
The argument from illusion
An illusion occurs where an object appears to have a property that the mind-independent object does not actually possess.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to revision-notes.com to keep reading this exclusive post.
