May
31
In epistemology is it really possible to refute skepticism without begging the question?
Posted by admin
Does it matter if it isn't? Is the best answer to take a pragmatic approach and simply refute skepticism through its lack of practical use while admitting that there are limitations to human reason? While I'm at it- any book recommendations on the subject? How about a good introduction to metaphysics? You might be able to tell I'm new to this whole field! When I say skepticism I am referring to radical skepticism, the idea that knowledge is impossible, not to the useful type of skepticism.
6 Responses to “In epistemology is it really possible to refute skepticism without begging the question?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The thing about all this is, there is no way to prove or disprove any of the items you will study. Which doesn’t mean don’t study it, but keep in mind these could all be imaginings, they could all be real, or some could be real and some could be made up. How will you know?
The hard skeptic will say it is all false. The hard believer will say it is all true. The middle-liner will stand somewhere in the middle, feeling out this and that, and denying some things while accepting others according to personality.
But that sort of intellectual sorting is ultimately not fulfilling. I suggest, in addition to your explorations of metaphysics, begin here: ask yourself any unanswerable question. Now, doubt it. Now, doubt doubt. You will soon realize the endless circle of rationalization.
Thereafter, practice meditation, and go deep within, searching for who you truly are. This alone will yield true answers that are not imaginary, and do not stem from other people’s experiences and opinions.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Isn’t the refutation of skepticism a double negative?
July 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
You can’t refute active skepticism without falling to the begging the question fallacy. Because you must ask yourself, “why not be skeptical?”, which is a skeptical response…
July 29th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
1) You can be skeptical about your own existence, but this refutes itself, since you must exist to hold that skeptical view. thus, there is at least one counter example to skepticism, and the whole thing becomes dubious.
2) Skepticism can also be applied to itself, and thus we doubt the doubt. The Pyrhonian skeptics realized this, saying “we cannot even be sure that we do not know”.
3) Finally, skepticism, relativism and realism all assume a representational stance – that our speaking about the world represents the world being spoken about. An instrumentalist stance, more akin to Darwinism, treats our language and models as tools, and thus the question of how well we represent the world does not arise. From this perspective, the categories of skeptic, relativist, etc., do not even arise.
There are problems with this last view as well, but I am only addressing whether or not we can escape skepticism without begging the question.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
You’ve got it, Pragmatism is the only answer. Radical skepticism is irrefutable. There are no absolutes, and as long as “knowledge” entails a notion of “certainty”, knowledge will be impossible to achieve, not only for humans, but for any system which is capable of conceptual representation.
The way that people should attack the problem is not…”How can I prove that I’m not dreaming?” or “How can I prove that the external world exists?” or any other sort of skeptical refutation…but rather take the attitude, “Gee, this is a strange situation in which I find myself…I am a being who sure seems to be conscious and have beliefs about the true state of the universe…but reason has shown me that this naieve attitude is flawed…What does that tell me about the human condition? What does the impossibility of certainty mean? What is the best response for someone in my epistemological conundrum?”
So I don’t entirely agree that one can reply to the skeptic: “Skepticism is empty and useless because it has no practical application”, nor is the correct answer to fight against it. The proper path is to accept the conclusions of skepticism, and work from there. See where they lead, see what you can do with them. Find the practicality of skepticism!
July 30th, 2008 at 10:23 am
no, and truth and falsity is a ridiculous way to go about things