How Contextualism Can Be Used to Disregard Skepticism

Critics propose that just because something cannot be confirmed, does not mean that it is not acknowledged or that there is no reason in trusting it. Rene Descartes wanted certain knowledge to be absolute, although this is not the only option, and others would claim that justified knowledge is adequate. Other philosophers claim skepticism is imperious because a skeptic cannot know that skepticism is absolute.

Do you ever wonder if you know anything? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). If this were to be true, can one be certain that one knows things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others? In fact, through the use of different methods, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others, which is why Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism can’t be true.

Have you ever had a feeling of doubt? In the play Doubt by John Patrick Shanley the reader is left with a lot of doubt because Father Flynn, one of the main characters, is being persecuted for sexually harassing a young boy in his class. In this play a pastor by the name of Father Flynn is being investigated because Sister Aloysius is suspicious that he has been sexually harassing a young boy by the name of Donald in their school. Based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play, Doubt: A Parable, I conclude that Father Flynn is not guilty, because Sister A does not like Flynn and Sister A doubts all of her wrong doings after all of this commotion. There are also a lot of small reasons why he should be not guilty.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Do you ever wonder if you know anything for certain? For example, have you ever wondered whether you are truly alive or if life is only a dream one simply cannot wake up from? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). According to Unger’s argument one simply cannot know anything about anything. One cannot know oneself, the world, or others. One does not know pain nor pleasure. One simply does not know anything. Through the use of different methods, however, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world, and others in contrast to what Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism states.

Beliefs based on bad evidence are always wrong no matter what the issue is. Clifford’s two examples clearly show why it is never okay to believe things without having facts to back up what you’re thinking. He also shows that accusing others based on incomplete evidence can negatively affect them. If people always try to justify their beliefs on bad evidence, they

In Doubt: A Parable by John Patrick Shanley, There is a battle between morality and progression into a new political and spiritual place. In this detailed book, Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn are in a full-blown, doubtful battle to discover the truth about if Father Flynn is paying too much attention to the school’s only black student.

In the reading of The Practical Skeptic written by Lisa J. Mclntyre , section one “ The Promise” written by C.Wright Mills talks about the idea of sociological imagination and what sociological imagination looks like. Sociological imagination, defined in the book, can be stated as a different way to see life. Most people have daily routines and those routines become their life. The same with thinking, people come to know one way of thinking and they live their life thinking that way. Sociological imagination, teaches the average person how to think outside of the bubble or thought process they have come to know and live.

In this essay, I will take into account Russel and Coplestone's debate about the Metaphysical Argument. I will be arguing my opinion that Russel's view on the matter is right. First, I will briefly discuss both philosopher's take on the argument before I begin discussing my reasons for picking Russel. I will also take into consideration what someone taking Coplestone's side might respond to my opinions and defend myself.

According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled

Born in 1845, William Clifford was a mathematician and philosopher famed for his philosophy of science and quest for answering ethical questions through scientific evidence (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Clifford recognized several difficulties in Emmanuel Kant’s argument related to philosophy, which inspired him to begin a search for answers related to innate belief, personal responsibility of guilt, and overall creation. In the Ethics of Belief, Clifford asserts that it is always wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence, a theme that would follow his opinion on every issue he chose to tackle.

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as