The External World Skeptic Argument

Vogel answers The Problem of Skepticism, through use of Inference to the Best Explanation. However, by using inference to the best argument to rule out the skeptical argument he overlooks that the skeptical argument is within itself an objection to inference to the best explanation.

Thus, the skeptics believed that there is no truth; even the statement, "there is no truth" could be false according to the Skeptics. All that can be said from a skeptical viewpoint is that things appear to be a certain way and never can be used as evidence for the truth. These grim outlooks on life are a very stark contrast from the more inquisitive and speculative doctrines of the classical period. In the Classical period, knowledge seemed as if it were a fountain forever untapped- in the Hellenistic period, many believed no knowledge seemed to be certain, and therefore as good as non-existent in the first place.

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.

The Evil Demon Hypothesis is an important component of the Method of Doubt. Descartes used the Method of Doubt to find what is true by withholding assent from all beliefs that are dubitable. However, if Descartes was to scrutinise everything he believed, he would be left with an

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.

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.

He distinguishes three types of currents of thought embodied by dogmatists, academics and skeptics (Sextus & Hallie, 1985). Sextus defines skepticism as the research of truth. Skepticism is the ability of doubting everything in order to validate any idea. It does not try to justify preconceived conclusions but is based on studying relations, experiences and goes beyond appearances. As stated by (Sextus & Hallie, 1985), the philosophy of skepticism stems from two main foundations: the first foundation mainly deals with dogmatic claims. It focuses on the fact that these claims tend to have an assumption on the relationship between how things appear and how they are in reality. By dogmatic, Sextus generally refers to the approval or acceptance of occurrences or things that are not evident and as a result, they tend to be beyond what they reflect. This is the reason why he claims that skeptics lead undogmatic lives in relation to how things or objects are perceived (Sextus & Hallie, 1985). As such, skeptics continue with their lives while suspending judgment with regard to the final

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

David Hume’s approach to skepticism is very different from Descartes’ ideas, mainly because he believes that it is not good to become skeptical of everything. Hume feels that there are two different types of skepticism: the type the Descartes follows, known as the “antecedent” skepticism that involves doubting everything, and moderate skepticism, which Hume feels is the more reasonable form (Hume 36). Hume feels that antecedent skepticism is pointless, and that by simply doubting everything, one is not able to find an answer to what they are looking for because they may never be satisfied with any form of validity. However, Hume feels that moderate skepticism is “a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy, by preserving a proper impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices, which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion,” (Hume 36). In other words, Hume is saying that moderate skepticism is necessary

René Descartes was an extremely influential 17th-century philosopher and came up with many ideas that still persist to this day. One of those ideas was Cartesian skepticism, which states that “the view that we do not or cannot have knowledge in regard to a particular domain,” knowledge, in this case, is justified, true, beliefs. He first comes up with his idea of skepticism in the first part of his work “Meditations On First Philosophy,” aptly named “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.” In his first meditation, he discusses his doubts with sensory illusion/error, possible dream states, and regarding deception by an evil demon. However, after dissolving his first two doubts, he gets stuck on the third and

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

In her "Epistemic Injustice," Chapter 1, Fricker (2009), argues that “there is a distinctively epistemic kind of injustice”, which she describes as an injustice that deals specifically with knowledge, hence the name “epistemic injustice”. The word epistemic comes from the Greek epistēmikós, equivalent to epistḗm(ē) knowledge + -ikos -ic, meaning of, or relating to knowledge (“Epistemic | Define Epistemic at Dictionary.Com” n.d.). I note that knowledge is, or should be, an important aspect of everyone’s life. This is because there is a distinctive difference between saying, I believe in contrast to I know, mostly because there tends to be more credibility in the latter than in the former. The concept of knowledge itself allows us to identify reliable sources. The main reason why scientists embrace skepticism is because the use of sources, and peer review can have an impact on scientific research. Another example is how a professor might require citing, because “one needs to provide evidence supporting any attributions of belief to the author” (Chelstrom 2018, 3). I make this distinction because to know something is to be treated as a reliable source of information about it and this relates to testimonial injustice.

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:

“A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence.” In the context of Theory of Knowledge, the definition of logic is reasoning conducted according to strict principles of validity. The definition of a knowledge claim is a statement that is assumed to be true. Adequacy is defined as the sufficiency for a particular purpose. Using this knowledge, it is appropriate to say being a skeptic is a great approach to acquire knowledge. For example in the Area of Knowledge of the natural sciences being a skeptic is a great characteristic. Another prime example is in the Area of Knowledge of history. In history, historians are always skeptical of others knowledge claims. They always are refining history by using the same concepts as a skeptic would: asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence. This process is a primary way that historians are able to acquire knowledge. However, acquired knowledge is useless unless historians are able to comprehend and utilize this knowledge, most easily by using the way of knowing of language and reason. By using language historians are able verify terms and concepts with each other in order to check the clarity of claims. With reason historians are able to check the validity of other claims in order to verify the information. Based on the quote and references to theory of knowledge, I can conclude that being a skeptic is