Using Skepticism to Acquire Knowledge

Skeptical arguments contain two components: a skeptical hypothesis and an argument that incorporates the skeptical hypothesis. A skeptical hypothesis is a reasonably possible situation where everything appears precisely as it now appears but all of the beliefs that are based on the appearances are incorrect. For example, all of the people that think that they exist could, in fact, be nothing more than a part of a giants dream of tiny aunt like representations of himself and his people. Skeptical arguments are of the following format: (1) if I know that I am writing this paper, then I can know that I am not just a manifestation in a giant’s dream. (2) I cannot know that I am not just a manifestation in a giant’s dream. (3) Therefore, I don’t know that I am writing this paper.

Skepticism is questioning attitude of unempirical knowledge. Skepticism forbids us to speculate beyond the content of our present experience and memory, yet we find it entirely natural to believe much more than that. Our idea of material objects is a combination of their sensible qualities rather than their actual qualities. Thus, we cannot know the true nature of objects or the universe. “…So long as men thought that real things subsisted without the mind, and that their knowledge was only so far forth real as it was conformable to real things, it follows they could not be certain they had any real knowledge at all. For how can it be known that the things which are perceived are conformable to those which are not perceived, or exist without the mind?” (Berkeley 86). Instead of matters in motion, Berkeley prefers ideas initiated by God. We cannot perceive God as the same reason we cannot perceive each other’s

Many people would argue that knowledge is power, but can too much knowledge be dangerous? How much is too much? Throughout history, the human race has had struggles with “too much knowledge” or going to extreme lengths to gain such knowledge. Is the everlasting quest to know something really worth it? In today’s generation, there is constantly new inventions of technology and theories of science. But maybe knowledge is starting to ruin people’s life and it shouldn’t be sought after. Very similar in the novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein deals with the deadly pursuit of knowledge. He is constantly intrigued into

Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, explores the theme of the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery through the main characters; Victor Frankenstein, the Creature and Robert Walton. This pursuit of knowledge drives the plot of the novel, leading Victor to create the Creature in his attempt to break down the mortal barriers that surround him and unlock the secret of life. Robert Walton’s quest for discovery leads him to the North Pole, far beyond the reach of Humans at that time. Ultimately Victor’s thirst for knowledge and scientific discovery did him more harm than good with Victor’s hatred of his creation driving him to death. Frankenstein’s message to the modern is age is simply put as “humans should not meddle in the business of the gods”. Mary Shelley’s is using Frankenstein and the actions of the characters in the novel to warn us that although we have the technology to for example, create a human being, some things are better left to nature. In our quest for knowledge we can do ourselves more harm than good. Through her novel Shelley tells us that on our path of scientific discovery there are some trails better left unexplored.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world” (Mandela). In discussions of education, Newman argues that there should be a common shared knowledge between people. According to statistics, there are 70% of Americans who do not hold a college degree. Newman’s ideas revolve around the belief that everyone should go to college and pursue a higher education. If Newman’s ideas are implemented in today’s society, there will not only be short term difficulties like a greater demand for teachers and supplies but also long term difficulties with America’s economy. Although Newman’s system sounds like it would create a better world in the surface, it would be one which is hard to apply in today’s American society.

My initial reaction to this text, A Critique of Skepticism, by John Hospers, held some unique technique as well with reason in regard to “Theory of Knowledge.” I think it was comprised with various, yet continuous questions. For example: What is knowing something is substantial? - Why is it imperative to isolate between what you know and do or can't know? - When do you doubt what you thought you truly knew? These questions fascinate my mind into pondering about things, substances, items, any form etc. This paper spotlights on uncertainty, and why philosophers, for instance, John Hospers challenge against this viewpoint. There are many avenues to approach what the idea of knowing- what do we know? How did we learn to know it? It can continue

If put into simpler words, what it’s trying to say is that as long as you know something, your evidence is good enough to rule out a claim, but if your evidence is not good enough, then doubts and uncertainty may be present about your claim. Skepticism is all about attitude of doubt or uncertainty, either in general or toward a specific thing, or to any doubtful attitude or

Confirmation Bias: only explore information that supports our ideas Hindsight Bias: reporting untruthfully that we projected an outcome Availability Heuristic: calculating possibilities grounded on ease of recall Base-Rate Fallacy: disregarding information about universal principles Representativeness Heuristic: making decisions grounded on stereotypes

I explored on shadowing and drawing in one point perspective for buildings, as well as shadows for the street lights. The risk taking I did was shadowing everything and adding value to it, as I wasn’t very sure I would do a good job on adding value to buildings. I used my creativity and expressed my artistic voice by adding street lights onto the sidewalks instead of leaving them bare and made the sky at night time instead at sunset or the afternoon, as I usually prefer night time over day time. I used a reference for drawing the street lights as I wasn’t sure if I should use a normal looking one or one that looked fancy, so I mixed the two and made the street light that I currently have. I noticed that not many people made their artwork set during night time, so I feel that doing that, as well as adding smaller details on my drawing made it stand out.

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

In approaching any obstacle, the usual individual depends on their use of critical thinking to fully analyze the subject, assess it, and reconstruct it in order to find a solution. In a similar manner, any true leader struggling through an obstacle would push themselves to think in a self-disciplined, self, monitored, and self directed method. Correspondingly, yet with a conflicting viewpoint, Peter Elbow believed critical thinking was divided into two components: “the believing game” and “the doubting game.” Distinct from one another, the believing game reflects an individual who makes choices in believing all assertions, whereas the doubting game involves one to question all assertions and make it an objective to seek the errors. Altogether, the our idea of

One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove

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

Knowledge can be accepted or refuted, hence what determines accepted knowledge? I believe ‘accepted knowledge’ is that which has been tested whereby sufficient evidence has been collected to support certain knowledge claims. However, it is important to consider times when knowledge has been refuted. Despite strong belief that we possess objective facts, through research and technological progresses, such facts become re-interpreted in light of new evidence and discoveries. Personally, discarded knowledge refers to theories or laws being dismissed as new-found information proves more accurate. However, knowledge can also be amended as it is evolves. Knowledge is often discarded or amended due to technological progresses or changing social trends. Taking both a natural and a human science in IB, I feel that knowledge is more readily discarded in the natural sciences whereas in the human sciences knowledge is amended as certain theories evolve. This suggests that knowledge is not static hence leading to the main knowledge issue which will be explored: “To what extent is knowledge within the human and natural sciences provisional?