The Skeptic Argument Analysis

This idea can be upheld by Susan Birch and Paul Bloom’s article: “The Curse of Knowledge in Reasoning About False Beliefs”, Louis Nahum’s article: “Disorientation, Confabulation, and Extinction Capacity: Clues on How the Brain Creates Reality” and Anthony Camara’s literary criticism of ‘The Willows’ entitled: “Nature Unbound: Cosmic Horror in Algernon Blackwood’s ‘The Willows’”.

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”.

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.

In Michael Frede’s article, ‘The Sceptic’s Beliefs,’ Frede argues that contrary to popular interpretation Pyrrhonian skeptics do, in fact, have beliefs. However, other scholars such as Myles Burnyeat disagree with this notion that Pyrrhonian skeptics can have beliefs. In this paper I will argue that Frede’s view of The Outlines of Scepticism is the correct interpretation of Sextus. As well as explain and clear up the dispute between epistemic and non-epistemic appearances.

Painting the Beta Bridge is a tradition at University of Virginia, and It’s been going on for years. It’s commonly known for It’s creative images people paint to share info with the community. If I had an opportunity to design the bridge I would paint diverse people holding hands in a heart shape figure around a globe that’s broken up into colorful pieces ; from one end of the wall, to the other end of the wall. I would put the logos of all the organizations, non-profit clubs, and volunteering programs in the background. This way I can advertise to people how they can get involved with their community. Each part of the painting will symbolize something important, that will contribute to the painting as a whole. Also I would laminate the bridge with biodegradable paint, so It doesn’t harm the environment.

In Baron Reeds, “A New Argument for Skepticism,” a new idea is brought to light to agree with the argument for skepticism. Usually, skeptical arguments require knowledge to be

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.

Most of the time, skepticism can be a difficult subject to talk about. John Pollock, author of “A Brain in a Vat”, introduces the idea of skepticism in an unusual way. He begins his writing by conversing about a man who is facing some unfamiliar circumstances. The man later discovers that an evil scientist has taken out his friend’s brain to relocate it into a vat. While this is happening, the brain continues to stay alive.

Skepticism argues that we do not know things about the external world. The External World Skeptic argument holds that we cannot, in principle, know things about the external world. Skeptical arguments aim to disprove the Standard Account of Knowledge, which claims that we do in fact know things about the external world. We come to know things through observation and experience, testimony, memory, introspection, and reasoning (Epistemology Lecture Notes). Skeptics claim that all of evidence we have for our knowledge are consistent with alternative hypotheses. The Traditional Account of Knowledge requires a justified, true belief for knowledge. Knowledge requires truth because we can only know things that are true. The factivity of knowledge means that everything we know must be true. Knowledge also calls for belief because you cannot know something you do not accept as true. Finally, knowledge must be justifiable because you need a basis, or evidence, for your true belief to count as knowledge. Skepticism objects the way we come to know things and our knowledge of things by claiming that we do not actually know things about the external world and that our evidence is consistent with alternative skeptical hypotheses.

Now with this example, I am not stating that if something is not visibly shown it does not exist. No, I am merely saying that if I am able to show another person something in plain sight, it must be real.

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

“If you cannot be sure that you are not a brain in a vat, then you cannot rule out the possibility of all of your beliefs about the external world being false.” (Bruekner, 2004) I

Contextualism today, is defined as the truth of a particular knowledge ascription dependent on the context in which that truth is uttered. Over the past century and decades there have been many great debates between philosopher’s over contextualism and how it can be used to disregard Skepticism. I agree with Cohen’s defense of Contextualism in regard’s to both how he answers Skepticism and Conee’s objections.

The sceptical argument is that we cannot have knowledge of an external world, if we cannot have knowledge of any of the particular aspects of the the external world. For instance I cannot know that I have hands, because there is always a plausible alternative which negates the truth value of the the fact that I have hands, and therefore the sceptic is right in asserting that we cannot know anything about the external world. The thought experiment often used, is that we are a brain in a vat hooked up to machine, which makes us believe all sorts of false informationa including the fact that we have hands.

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