This is an excellent example, because it illustrates the two different ways one can be ‘mistaken’:
Having a mistaken ‘folk theory’ of subjective experiences.
Being wrong about the “contents of my own consciousness” as Yvain puts it.
So either the card looked black and then red without changing its apparent color (implausible), or I was mistaken about my subjective experience somewhere (the initial color perception, or the absence of a change perception).
What you call “implausible” here is just something that would cause you to radically change your theory of subjective experience. One can trivially eliminate “mistakes” in Yvain’s sense, simply by making ad hoc revisions to one’s “folk psychology”. The trouble is that, on the one hand, the “folk theory” cannot simply be ditched or we would have no way to even describe what we saw, but on the other, insofar as we have a theory at all, we cannot be certain that it won’t need to be revised.
The bottom line is that ‘infallibility’ is nowhere to be found.
This is an excellent example, because it illustrates the two different ways one can be ‘mistaken’:
Having a mistaken ‘folk theory’ of subjective experiences.
Being wrong about the “contents of my own consciousness” as Yvain puts it.
What you call “implausible” here is just something that would cause you to radically change your theory of subjective experience. One can trivially eliminate “mistakes” in Yvain’s sense, simply by making ad hoc revisions to one’s “folk psychology”. The trouble is that, on the one hand, the “folk theory” cannot simply be ditched or we would have no way to even describe what we saw, but on the other, insofar as we have a theory at all, we cannot be certain that it won’t need to be revised.
The bottom line is that ‘infallibility’ is nowhere to be found.