Skepticism...any way around it?!
I have come to the conclusion that we should all be skeptics.
If I got hit by a car, people would generally agree that it would hurt.
However, it is not certain that it would and I would not know this.
We could perhaps say that "I think that I would be hurt".
But that too is not certain.
Now, here's the thing.
I have seen people say things along the line of:
"You can't know you'd be hurt but you have good reason to believe you would be".
"Cars travel at great speed and if you accept a fast car would hurt you, this is a logical reason of your belief"
"Another good reason why you do in fact believe it would hurt would be that I would have seen car crashes with my own eyes".
Now, these 'good reasons' for highlighting if something would happen / if we are thinking a particular way....are not certain!
An evil genius (heard of him?) could have made me mistakenly suggest fast cars hurt, whilst hiding my true beliefs from me. My brain could be in a vat and being fed untruths about logical reasoning, masking all true good reasons.
If I cannot be certain that I think the car would hurt, how can I avoid complete skepticism? Surely having 'good reason to think otherwise' is no real answer. All evidence which suggests it would hurt, could be false.
Thoughts?
If I got hit by a car, people would generally agree that it would hurt.
However, it is not certain that it would and I would not know this.
We could perhaps say that "I think that I would be hurt".
But that too is not certain.
Now, here's the thing.
I have seen people say things along the line of:
"You can't know you'd be hurt but you have good reason to believe you would be".
"Cars travel at great speed and if you accept a fast car would hurt you, this is a logical reason of your belief"
"Another good reason why you do in fact believe it would hurt would be that I would have seen car crashes with my own eyes".
Now, these 'good reasons' for highlighting if something would happen / if we are thinking a particular way....are not certain!
An evil genius (heard of him?) could have made me mistakenly suggest fast cars hurt, whilst hiding my true beliefs from me. My brain could be in a vat and being fed untruths about logical reasoning, masking all true good reasons.
If I cannot be certain that I think the car would hurt, how can I avoid complete skepticism? Surely having 'good reason to think otherwise' is no real answer. All evidence which suggests it would hurt, could be false.
Thoughts?
Comments (62)
Are you trolling us? Certainty is not required for knowledge
Not trolling, simply unsure.
How is certainty not required for knowledge?
I believe car will hurt.
That belief may not be my own (may not even be a belief,just me misunderstanding or making a mistake)
I wrote about this in the thread called, on solipsism and knowledge.
Can you please summarise?
Why can’t you just read it? It’s on this forum for all to see
How do I find this post? thank yuo
It’s an original post, probably on Page 2 or three of the “all discussions”
It’s on page 2 of “all discussions”
You say:
Likewise, since I have good evidence that other people have brains, and similarly I have a brain, and because of the other anatomical equivalencies between me and other human beings, and because of their similar behavior, I can infer inductively by analogy that based on this evidence, they are conscious like me.
This is what I mean, "good evidence".
This good evidence comes from our beliefs, our thoughts, our feelings etc. What if these indicators are false? What if the good evidence from my 'belief' is false because it isn't actually my belief, rather that I was mistaken.
Wouldn't knowledge therefore be impossible?
So you are a global skeptic. Why would you want to live your life that way, and furthermore, how does that affect the way you live?
I wouldn't want to live it that way, on the contrary.
I'm asking if this 'good evidence' can be mistaken? I believe it can.
There is as much chance that you watched Countdown, as you did not.
The indicators that you had, cannot be certain. So if you 'feel' like you've watched it, this feeling may be mistaken - you may actually believe you missed the show?
But, the 'memories' of the show could be false also?
So what? How does that affect the way I live?
I'm saying knowledge cannot be gained without certainty.
That goes against all epistemic theory.
I'm new to all this...what's that haha?
Epistemology Is the philosophical study of knowledge
I could be mistaken about a particular belief, but I like to believe that most of my beliefs are consistent and coherent with the rest of my beliefs. They justify one another, and they are justified by sense experience.
It is only debatable if you are a global skeptic. I don’t know why it would make you anxious, and I don’t know how to convince someone that they’re not being tricked by an evil demon. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds to be tricked by an evil demon? Or that you are a brain in a vat? What is more likely? I believe it is most likely that the world is real.
If my thoughts and beliefs are not certain, even with what I appear to feel and think, then that makes me feel uneasy.
What if our loved ones are not real?
What if our beliefs are so far false that we cause harm to others?
That’s ridiculous nonsense, and I don’t have time for this nonsense. How would a brain in a vat hurt anyone?
Why is it ridiculous?
How would a brain in a vat hurt anyone or someone being tricked by an evil demon hurt anyone?
If our beliefs are all wrong, then our actions could potentially be catastrophic.
If it's not certain that water keeps me alive and I cannot be certain of my belief that it does, why drink it? It could quite easily kill me or others.
If it appears that I believe this, I may in fact not and could, in the future, stop drinking water.
I suggest you seek out a psychiatrist immediately. You could be a harm to yourself or others.
Brilliant.
Dispute what I said as being wrong?
No I’m serious. I really believe that you are sick
As am I.
Water is as likely to kill me as you didn't watch Countdown.
The only way around it is to get a Chapter 51 on the Skeptic.
I went through this with you already.
They're not supposed to be certain. That's the whole point of the approach.
The way around skepticism is to stop worrying about certainty. There's no reason to focus on certainty.
How can it be a good reason if, for all we know, it's as likely to be right as it is wrong?
I went through this with you already.
What method of probability calculation are you using? I'm not going to let you just ignore that question, because then we'll have to go through this again. Tell me how you're figuring likelihood.
I'm not sure. I figure likelihood on what I think and feel, I suppose.
I just think that:
- Good reasons/evidence are subjective to our thoughts and beliefs and therefore uncertain.
That's not at all an answer we should expect from someone obsessed with certainty, is it?
Probability isn't going to have anything to do with what you feel.
Huh?
You're concerned with certainty, right?
Yeah.
It scares me that my thoughts may not be my thoughts (Not that they are the thoughts of the Demon, but that they are different then what they 'appear' to be)
Right. Yet here you are forwarding a probability argument for which you don't have any idea just how you're doing a probability calculation. It's just how you "feel." There's nothing certain about your probability argument, then, is there?
Nothing certain about me asking these questions, you mean?
Then, no, I'd agree, there is not.
Where are you going with this aha?
You're asserting "it's as likely to be right as it is wrong"
It’s as likely that I am the flying spaghetti monster as that drinking clean water will kill you.
Without certainty, it would seem so
But what if we are all wrong and I am not?
Can we say that beyond doubt?
Nope. We're not moving on to something else until we sort this out, because I'm not going to keep going over the same thing again and again.
You're asserting "it's as likely to be right as it is wrong," correct?
It would seem so, but I can't be certain that I am.
Well, if you didn't, you've at least got one thing right.
You've lost me, sorry.?
I don’t think you’re serious. I think you’re trolling us
I'm not. I'm not a frickin' smart ass, I'm genuinely interest in this.
Sorry if it's come across that way.
Look up “probability calculation,” then tell me what’s more likely, viz. that I’m the Flying Sphagetti Monster or you’re incorrigible.
I already am. Now what?
Better not, as it seems.... Just forget about that kind of bullshit. Reinsure the rationality of such patterns of thought asking yourself what they are good for. As Aristoteles puts it: It is wrong to say of things, that are not, that they were. Think about this. What makes up for the being of such thoughts? Do you have reason asking yourself such stuff? Or are you just farting against the wind? Doing so may make the world stink.
Plan B: Go buy yourself some dignity.
Yeah but are you a real skeptic? I'm skeptical.
Maybe, maybe not. I suggest postponing judgement on the matter.
I agree. There's no need for us to become judgemental Kants.
:grin:
I'm probably more like how Ariston described Arcesilaus (ch. 33, book 1 of the "Outlines"):
"And this was why Ariston described him as "Plato the head of him, Pyrrho the tail, in the midst Diodorus"; because he employed the dialectic of Diodorus, although he was actually a Platonist."
... Only with different folks. So:
Brentano the head of me, Sextus Empiricus the tail, in the midst Cicero and Quintilian. Well, as far as western philosophy is concerned. With eastern philosophy, it's mostly neo-daoism.