Skeptical Scenarios: Revisited: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Skeptical Scenarios: Revisited » Skeptical Scenarios: Revisited

Skeptical Scenarios: Revisited

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/01/09 - 05:10 PM: Subject: Skeptical Scenarios: Revisited	#1
There are several classical ways of dealing with skeptical scenarios. Some (in my opinion) more convincing than others....but I am unsatisfied. Consider the scenario: P1. If I do not know that I am not a Brain in a Vat, then I do not know that I have hands P2. I do not know that I am not a Brain in a Vat Ergo: I do not know that I have hands --------- A classical Moorean response to this is: Hold up one hand. Hold up another hand. Thus: 'I have hands'! and skepticism is refuted. I think Moore is telling us something important here, but perhaps not what he thinks that he is telling us. For one, us epistemologists who take skepticism seriously, it's not going to be this easy. If you are a brain in a vat, you can hold up your hands all day and that doesn't mean that 'you' have hands. What he is pointing out is that different situations call for different standards in terms of what should count as knowledge. Even though I might not know that I am not a BIV, I do know that I have hands if I see -- one hand...another hand. I've clearly, besides bringing in extraneous skeptical scenarios, satisfied JTB. One way to push this point is to distinguish between sensitive and insensitive knowledge. Consider two scenarios: A1. I believe that I have hands, but if my hands were cut off in an accident, I would not believe that I have hands. A2. I believe that I have hands, but if I am a BIV then.... I would still believe that I have hands, even though I do not. ---------------- What is taking place is that there are different standards of knowledge in different relevant scenarios. If you are at a bar, and I am at a bar, and my pack of smokes is resting on the bar. You turn to me and ask 'Is that my pack of smokes?'. I say 'No'. 'That's my pack of smokes'. That is completely consistent with JTB given the situation. I pulled the smokes from my pocket, set them on the bar....hell, I would offer you a smoke if you have to ask about my smokes. BUT...what if our friend is a skeptic. She might ask...'Isn't is possible that is not your pack of smokes...isn't it possible that the mad scientist makes you believe that is your pack of smokes?'. The correct answer (I think) is 'Yes'. But, our skeptic has significantly shifted the standards for what should count as knowledge. Everyday scenarios, such as pulling smokes out of my pockets, warrants the belief that these are my smokes. But in skeptical scenarios, it does not. I don't want to go too far into this, because I am interested in hearing how some of you guys (and gals) think about such scenarios. So, I will cut off at this point...and based on discussion that comes in I will bring in what I think about this issue.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 05/01/09 - 05:46 PM:	#2
It's curious how the sceptical cliche is culturally variable. I might equally be a butterfly dreaming, or a soul deceived by demons, but these days, for some reason, a brain in a vat seems much more reasonable. Anyway, the world in which I know what a hand is and can wonder about hands, is the world in which there are hands and I have them. There are possible worlds in which there are no hands, or in which demons or mad scientists or Chang Tsu have hands and I do not, but they are not the world in which you and I are debating. "What do you mean by a hand?" I ask. In the end, there is no answer but to wave one at me - in which case you have one. But perhaps you haven't even doubted anything, and I am talking to a computer - I see no sign of your hands. What is a hand, anyway? What is a sceptic?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/01/09 - 06:51 PM:	#3
Wave your hands all day sir...and you and Chang feel sure about this all day long. You miss my point. Sorry.

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/01/09 - 06:56 PM:	#4
Being generous though...I will point out to you that you have changed the question. Asking whether I have hands and what it means to have hands are to fundamentally different deep questions. What are you asking? And how does either, in your philosophy, relate to anything I said in my post?

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 05/01/09 - 07:19 PM:	#5
Sorry if I am being obtuse. You have the word "hand" from somewhere; you are talking to someone who understands the word "hand". and then you say "I do not know that I am not a Brain in a Vat". So you doubt the hands with which you type, in front of your eyes, but do not doubt the brain that you have never seen or felt. How do you know you are not a plate of spaghetti? I know that I am not a plate of spaghetti simply because I know what the words mean, and I know that I have hands for the same reason. And I know I am not a brain in a vat for the same reason again. I,ve seen the movies, and I know what brains in vats look like, just as I know what spaghetti looks like. How do you wingle that you're not a bongle? It doesn't mean anything, but it demonstrates that in formulating a doubt one is already assuming a common language. One can only have a common language in reference to a common world. That you can express the idea of being a BIV demonstrates that you are not one. Brains in vats are cultural ideas.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 05/01/09 - 08:12 PM:	#6
treysuttle wrote: There are several classical ways of dealing with skeptical scenarios. Some (in my opinion) more convincing than others....but I am unsatisfied. Consider the scenario: P1. If I do not know that I am not a Brain in a Vat, then I do not know that I have hands P2. I do not know that I am not a Brain in a Vat Ergo: I do not know that I have hands --------- A classical Moorean response to this is: Hold up one hand. Hold up another hand. Thus: 'I have hands'! and skepticism is refuted. I think Moore is telling us something important here, but perhaps not what he thinks that he is telling us. For one, us epistemologists who take skepticism seriously, it's not going to be this easy. If you are a brain in a vat, you can hold up your hands all day and that doesn't mean that 'you' have hands. What he is pointing out is that different situations call for different standards in terms of what should count as knowledge. Even though I might not know that I am not a BIV, I do know that I have hands if I see -- one hand...another hand. I've clearly, besides bringing in extraneous skeptical scenarios, satisfied JTB. One way to push this point is to distinguish between sensitive and insensitive knowledge. Consider two scenarios: A1. I believe that I have hands, but if my hands were cut off in an accident, I would not believe that I have hands. A2. I believe that I have hands, but if I am a BIV then.... I would still believe that I have hands, even though I do not. ---------------- What is taking place is that there are different standards of knowledge in different relevant scenarios. If you are at a bar, and I am at a bar, and my pack of smokes is resting on the bar. You turn to me and ask 'Is that my pack of smokes?'. I say 'No'. 'That's my pack of smokes'. That is completely consistent with JTB given the situation. I pulled the smokes from my pocket, set them on the bar....hell, I would offer you a smoke if you have to ask about my smokes. BUT...what if our friend is a skeptic. She might ask...'Isn't is possible that is not your pack of smokes...isn't it possible that the mad scientist makes you believe that is your pack of smokes?'. The correct answer (I think) is 'Yes'. But, our skeptic has significantly shifted the standards for what should count as knowledge. Everyday scenarios, such as pulling smokes out of my pockets, warrants the belief that these are my smokes. But in skeptical scenarios, it does not. I don't want to go too far into this, because I am interested in hearing how some of you guys (and gals) think about such scenarios. So, I will cut off at this point...and based on discussion that comes in I will bring in what I think about this issue. Do note the difference between ancient scepticism and the pop notion of that school. You're not actually critiquing anything about actual scepticism. It's more related to such schools as stoicism and epicureanism, since it describes a general outlook on life. The main issues of scepticism are about ataraxia and being non-dogmatic. I suggest reading up on Sextus Empiricus if you want to actually critique that school. Otherwise any attack will probably just be a straw man. I believe Kant said something similar about Hume's critics: "for while they were ever taking for granted that which he doubted, and demonstrating with zeal and often with impudence that which he never thought of doubting, they so misconstrued his valuable suggestion that everything remained in its old condition, as if nothing had happened." (Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics) I believe the undogmatic frame of mind promoted by scepticism is what being a "seeker of knowledge" is all about, since once one is tricked into believing that one has found the answer, the search stops. If everything flows, then why not a persons knowledge, especially in the light of our limited scope of things? Don't we all learn and see more, every moment we live? And if so, doesn't our perspective change over time? Becoming mentally rusted stuck to some or the other system is like being an intellectual corpse, in my opinion, and scepticism, actual scepticism, is the antidote. Anyway, relating to your questions, ontological doubt isn't the same thing as doubting conventions (or in a more generalised terminology, particulars). Ontological doubt is useful, because it makes one explicitly aware that "things may not be as they seem", which seems to be supported by particle physics and neurophenomenology (that is, how the senses, brain and mental representations work together to form a human way of perceiving the world) for lack of a better term. As for Moore's hand thingy: for individual cases, two words: Ghost limbs. For generalised cases such as brains in vats and dreams and the like, the possibility of coherent hallucinations aren't refuted by immanent evidence since they might be part of the whole hallucination. The whole notion of such possible coherent hallucinations are actually trancendent, and are rather antinomous in my opinion. Good luck on breaking that deadlock though. Edited by ying on 05/01/09 - 08:38 PM
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 05/02/09 - 06:28 AM:	#7
Sure, we have the word. And we even have the experience. Moore seems to believe that the experience is sufficient to refute skepticism. You seem to hold a similar belief...and a belief somewhat along the lines of cultural ideas cannot be realities. I don't think the problem is so easily dismissed. I dream all the time that I have hands, and at least the experience within the dream doesn't 'have hands' in any nontrivial sense. The issue is not whether I believe that I am in such a skeptical scenario. I don't. But, it would be a very distant possible world in which I both was in a skeptical scenario and believed that I was in a skeptical scenario. Such beliefs are insensitive...even if I was a BIV I would not believe that I was. If I didn't have hands...I probably wouldn't believe that I have hands. For example, in a very near possible world in which I accidentally cut my hands off playing with a chainsaw. You see, the standards for knowledge are very different. The skeptic is asking for a standard for knowledge that is much much higher than our ordinary everyday standard....much higher than even our specialized cases such as in the physics laboratory. I think I can consistently say both that I know that I have hands and that I do not know that I am not a BIV. Traditionally, this has been problematic in epistemology. The problem for traditional epistemology is that they assume the same standards for knowledge across the board..and I think comparing a skeptical scenario to ordinary knowledge claims shows that this is false. Ying...I'm not making a historical statement. I am aware that my problem is not the problem of ancient skepticism. My problem derives from the modern skepticism made famous by Descartes. There are current epistemological issues that are in the spirit of ancient skepticism, but that is not my problem in this post. You understand that the within the skeptical scenario that I am referred to, literally you cannot be a 'seeker' of knowledge, because according to the traditional epistemological position, you cannot have knowledge (at least of the empirical world) if you are a brain in a vat. The ancient skeptics were not concerned with knowledge...they were concerned with happiness. A quite different issue.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.