I think we're talking about different things. I'm not making any claims about the nature of knowledge, but rather justification. Surely you don't deny...
On second thought, this is Pyrrhonism, not Academic skepticism. It does point towards a simple 'suspension of all beliefs' rather than any true declar...
I'm trying to download this article from JSTOR because I think it deals with what I'm talking about, but it insists that I have to pay $15 despite cla...
Not within its own epistemic framework, but they still aren't able to ultimately justify themselves. I'm not knowledgeable enough to give my opinion o...
If global skepticism holds, then we have no more reason to believe in scientific claims than any other type of claim. An assertion about feldspars wou...
Well, I suppose if one can't coherently suggest that something might be wrong or mistaken. I'm not sure what that could be. You say 'logically speakin...
Here is another way of formulating the problem: suppose that most of the observers in existence are simulated by some malevolent AI (i.e. Cartesian de...
I don't really understand what you're asking (remember that I'm not well-read). I do think that those statements presuppose important claims like 'my ...
Most philosophers do not accept radical skepticism. I'm sure that they do accept that all ideas are fallible, but what I'm arguing here is that that u...
The only way that conclusion could be made is through the use of logic, which this argument aims to undermine. It does try to show that knowledge is i...
This argument seems powerful at first because animals with very similar cognition have, in our planet's history, far outnumbered humans (who we can su...
This argument is powerful because animals with very similar cognition have, in our planet's history, far outnumbered humans (who are unique, we can su...
Comments