Skepticism Vogel Analysis

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.

The skeptic is unable to investigate or form any sort of conception of their dogmatic views.(III 31) The above conclusion stems from two premises presented by the dogmatists in their argument against the skeptics ability to inquire.

In the fifth and last skeptical hypothesis, Descartes raises the possibility of there being an evil demon that deceives him into believing falsehoods. Descartes has established arguments that either support or demolish the thoughts for all of these skeptical hypotheses. As stated previously, the dream argument points out that people may actually be dreaming when they think they are living in reality. Descartes used his methods of detecting falsities to evaluate this argument.

To understand Vogel’s response to skepticism of the real world hypothesis, we need to know what skepticism is. Vogel’s definition of skepticism has two premises and a conclusion. Premise 1 states that:

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.

In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Feldman discusses the role of intolerance and relativism in argumentation in regards to how epistemic peers who have a share of the same evidence reasonably maintain their own belief, all the while, maintaining that the other party of the disagreement is reasonable in their belief as well. This essay will concentrate on the benefits of Feldman’s observation and the benefits of critical thinking in argumentation as well as elaborate on the main reason as to why people so desperately agree to disagree in relation to media coverage.

Although, I selected the Vogels for my discussion you made some interesting points for your reasoning in selecting the Annenbergs. The point you made about the Vogels exploiting the artists, makes sense since many of the artworks they bought ended up being worth much more after their bargain purchases, thus limiting the profit the artists recieved.

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

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.

Skepticism is define as an intellectual process of applying reason and critical thinking to validate a certain point. Skepticism was the very base for Descartes arguments in the first two meditations. He started by

This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.

Skepticism is the Western philosophical tradition that maintains that human beings can never arrive at any kind of certain knowledge. Originating in Greece in the middle of the fourth century BC, skepticism and its derivatives are based on the following principles:

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