skepticism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » skepticism » skepticism

skepticism

Parakeet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/29/08 - 10:21 PM: Subject: skepticism	#1
I'm doing a term paper on why skepticism isn't a rational viewpoint. More specifically I am arguing against the kind of skepticism that uses skeptical scenarios (i.e. a mad scientist is decieving us into thinking the world is how we think it is)to support the claim that knowledge is impossible. Comments and advice would be greatly appreciated. Especially on how I can improve my arguments. Argument 1: P = the skeptical claim that knowledge is impossible. (knowledge as defined by the standard analysis) 1. If a belief is true and adequately justified, then it is knowledge. 2. Knowledge is either impossible or possible. 3. If knowledge is possible, then P is false. 4. If knowledge is impossible, then P is true. 5. If knowledge is impossible, then P is not knowledge. 6. If knowledge is impossible, then P is a true belief. 7. Therefore, belief of P is either inadequately justified or false. Arguement 2: If we are to accept the skeptics proposition that knowledge is impossible, then we will sooner or later encounter a perplexing dilemma. Since all knowledge has been redefined as mere belief, how are we to distinguish opinions, guesses, ignorance, and errors from the beliefs that are not only true, but evidential. In what way is the statement "I see my hand" different from "there are demons in my head"? We might say that although the first proposition is supported by more evidence than the second, both fall short of the level of justification needed for knowledge. The first person does not know that they see a hand, just as the second does not know that there are demons in their head. In the face of such dogmatism, we might return to examine the conditions for knowledge. Is certainty really a neccesity for knowledge? If we have no way of determining whether or not there is an invisible flock of flying unicorns above my head, then is it really the case that we don't know if flying unicorns are really there? The error of skepticism lies in the misunderstanding of the way knowledge functions in our language. Its function is to separate opinions, guesses, and falsities, from true beliefs based on evidence. By imposing an impossible condition on knowledge, the skeptic fails to meet the original purpose and denies knowledge its functionality. He only succeeds in creating a useless term. 1. If knowledge is impossible, then it cannot be used to distinguish between different types of propositions. 2. Knowledge is used to distinguish between different types of propositions. 3. Therefore, knowledge is not impossible.

Baldrick
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: UK

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 11/30/08 - 02:32 AM:	#2
why must knowledge be possible/impossible...cant it also be indeterminable? By claiming knowledge is impossible, I think you are setting up a paradox: (1) "All knowledge is false", (2) "this conclusion [1] is false" Indeed, if a mad scientist wished to decieve us about everything, then it is not sufficient to simply make everything in the world 'a lie' [false], instead he would have to throw in a whole bunch on indeterminables: I.e: 1: Everything is black or white 2: Our [unreal] universe is Black 3: Everything in our universe is a lie [false] 4: If 1, 2, and 3 then it follows that the real world is white 5: If 4, then Knowledge is possible. But, should we give statement 1 three values (Everything is black or white or Red) we cannot claim to know what the colour of the real world is (since this arguement cannot deduce whether it is white or red). The best we can say is that the real world is "not Black" But now change statement 3: "Everything in our universe is a lie [false] or it does not have a truth value." now we do not even have the knowledge of what the real world 'is not' since 4 does not follow. In brief my point is that, "all knowledge is false" is a paradox which essentially means we can know of things, but by giving things an indeterminable value 'P' can decieve us in a way which we can know of nothing (including the truth of this statement!). This all means that premise (2) of your arguement might be false, and therefore, so it (7) the last arguement in your post "1. If knowledge is impossible, then it cannot be used to distinguish between different types of propositions....." seems weak. to me, it sounds like a fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_Consequent )

noncontra
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 12/02/08 - 04:17 AM:	#3
Parakeet, Your 2nd argument is pretty hard to follow. I'll assume your main point is that the skeptical position 'redefines knowledge as mere belief', thus "knowledge" in fact falls short of the tripartite analysis' definition of knowledge, making knowledge impossible? You'll have to clarify. (And keep in mind that the skeptic in P isn't claiming that "certain" or infallible knowledge is impossible; the skeptic's claim P is that knowledge whatsoever is impossible - it is up to your criteria for knowledge as to whether certainty or probability is adopted as justification) You could make the 2nd argument logically valid by simply rearranging it as follows: 1) If knowledge is used to distinguish different types of propositions, then it is possible. 2) Knowledge is used to distinguish between different types or propositions 3) Therefore, knowledge is possible. Still, the argument based on 'the way knowledge functions in our language' is subject to the attacks of a skeptical scenario, e.g. a demon is manipulating your criterion for distinguishing propositions such that it appears the criterion is that of 'knowledge' when really it is something else which is completely arbitrary. The first argument is a stronger one - just remember that the skeptic doesn't argue that they know knowledge is impossible (see the KK-principle), but only that knowledge IS impossible, so you might have to modify or exclude premise 5 to account for this.

timw
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 451

Posted 12/02/08 - 03:37 PM:	#4
Descartes, anyone? You don't have to prove that all knowledge is possible, just that some is. Once that's done, then absolute skepticism is done. Descartes' argument was that the evil genie may very well be deceiving me about everything—but that in being deceived my existence is affirmed. "I think therefore I am." A thinking being, for Descartes. To be sure about his arms and legs and the rest of the world he had to suppose God. This aspect of Descartes cogito doesn't get much attention, that I have found, but I think it's pretty striking. There is an argument that suggests that he included this "proof" of God just to be safe in a dangerous world. Depending on your instructor, a one-word essay, "Descartes" might entirely suffice and get you an A, or should. Or the magic phrase, "I think therefore I am." None of this is to be confused with Greek skepticism, which is roughly the courage to sustain and live with and under uncertainty, where uncertainty is found.

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2215

Posted 12/04/08 - 02:47 AM:	#5
I find the 2nd argument pretty well put. The point you want to drive is that question you throw back to the skeptics: "What, then, is the statement 'Knowledge is impossible'?" How do you [the skeptics]treat this statement? That is the same strategy that timw is saying: you only need one certain thing, and you get the rest. The same idea Wittgenstein says: if you know this is your hand, then the rest follows. Impossibility does not admit exceptions.
Thank you for listening.

upstreamdream
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 30, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 0

Posted 07/01/09 - 02:33 PM:	#6
Parakeet, I am a sceptic, and I'm not sure that your arguments stand up to the idea that we can meaningfully talk of knowledge in an anti-realist sense. Focusing solely on the realist notion of knowledge doesn't appear to me to be a strong enough basis for an attack on scepticism, at least as far as your arguments go.
A clean conscience is the most important thing.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4126

Posted 07/01/09 - 07:28 PM:	#7
Just a quick comment, your first statement needs work imo. If a belief is true, then by any definition I know of it can be called knowledge and does not need to be "adequately justified" (whatever that means, especially to a skeptic!) For example, if I stubb my big toe and hurt myself and believe that I have hurt myself then my belief can be considered true without any need to justify my belief in any way whatsoever. I can just spontaneously accept my experience that I have hurt myself. This also brings into question exactly what you mean by "belief". For example, Lao Tzu said: "Belief is a colorful hope or fear, the beginning of confusion!" Beliefs are abstract representations of reality, fantasy, or whatever. It is possible to argue that I can know that I have stubbed my big toe and hurt myself without ever having to form a belief about the event.

sqeecoo
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 375

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:54 AM:	#8
Parakeet wrote: I'm doing a term paper on why skepticism isn't a rational viewpoint. More specifically I am arguing against the kind of skepticism that uses skeptical scenarios (i.e. a mad scientist is decieving us into thinking the world is how we think it is)to support the claim that knowledge is impossible. Comments and advice would be greatly appreciated. Especially on how I can improve my arguments. Hi! Skepticism is my favorite topic :P However, the "skeptical scenarios" are not the best the skeptic can come up with. The best skeptical argument is actually much simpler: The simplest way of evaluating the success of a theory of justification (induction, contextualism, whatever) is to ask the following question: "Having justified a belief using this method, has our position improved in any way?" Let's say you start with an unjustified belief A, like "all ravens are black". You then justify it in some way, like using induction, fundational beliefs, or by giving some kind evidence or whatnot (let's put aside the problems with the practical application of these methods). What is achieved by this other then shifting the question to the reasons you have given, and the viability of the methods (induction, foundationalism) you have used? In what way is your position better, now that you have moved the problem from A to "induction is reliable" or "this belief is foundational", or something else? What's the advantage you have gained in relation to your starting position, namely that of examining an unjustified belief? Even more generally, the question justificationists (those that argue that justification is a viable method in rational inquiry) should answer is: "Can justification do anything else then shift the question elsewhere, and can anything be gained by this?" For an alternative approach that preserves rationality but does not use justification, try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism ----- Ok, that's the argument I use as a skeptic (yep, I am one), so I had to bring it up. Now back to your questions. Parakeet wrote: 7. Therefore, belief of P is either inadequately justified or false. Or true. The last line should read "true but inadequately justified, or false". And that's exactly what the skeptic claims - that his claim is true, but unjustified. A skeptic who says the skeptical position is justified is silly - the whole point is that justification is not possible (in a rationally satisfactory way). So your first argument does not do anything against the skeptic. The most important thing to remember in discussions about skepticism is that justification /= truth. This is a source of huge confusion. The skeptic says that justification (and knowledge in the sense of justified true belief) is not rationally possible, but NOT that we can't occasionally be right, or that we can't be rational. Of course, some skeptics says this too, but that goes beyond the basic skeptical question of "is justification possible?". Skepticism does not automatically entail relativism and irrationalism. Parakeet wrote: Arguement 2: If we are to accept the skeptics proposition that knowledge is impossible, then we will sooner or later encounter a perplexing dilemma. Since all knowledge has been redefined as mere belief, how are we to distinguish opinions, guesses, ignorance, and errors from the beliefs that are not only true, but evidential. We don't. ALL our beliefs and theories are conjectural. There are no "evidential" beliefs. However, we can occasionally eliminate some errors by critical discussion and empirical testing (but we can't have "sufficient evidence" we have eliminated these errors). Parakeet wrote: If we have no way of determining whether or not there is an invisible flock of flying unicorns above my head, then is it really the case that we don't know if flying unicorns are really there? The error of skepticism lies in the misunderstanding of the way knowledge functions in our language. Its function is to separate opinions, guesses, and falsities, from true beliefs based on evidence. By imposing an impossible condition on knowledge, the skeptic fails to meet the original purpose and denies knowledge its functionality. He only succeeds in creating a useless term. So how exactly can a belief be "based" on evidence, and what advantage does that offer? As opposed, for instance, to "basing" a belief on cheese. Read the first bit of my post with the green questions before you answer. There, I hope you found my post interesting, and perhaps helpful. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers! EDIT: Ah crap, all this work for nothing - just saw the date on the OP. Well, anyone want to discuss this anyway? :P

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