Skepticism is Dead

When people first start to get interested in philosophy, something that most do is to try and develop or hone some good critical thinking skills. It’s important to know when you’re being bullshitted. And it’s important to understand what it is to have deductive validity.
A problem that occurs all too often is that people realize the power of skeptical arguments and begin to abuse them by going about deducting everything that they encounter to a state where no knowledge can exist at all, while failing to recognize that even skepticism is a founded concept and a system which indeed does have objective properties. It may be true that we can’t measure the boundaries of the universe, but it simply doesn’t follow that there can be no knowledge or facts.

The problem that I see is that these pseudo-skeptics use strong skeptical arguments in order to assert thier views and negate those of others while resting on a foundation which will necessarily negate even what’s left once they “win” the argument given that the point of view of skepticm is taken further enough along.

Some extreme cases that I’ve seen have held such notions that we can’t even have proof of simple moorean facts. I would hope that any reasonable thinker would admit that he in fact is who he is and that if he’s looking at his hands that he would admit that there are two hands, belonging to him, right in front of him.

The fact is that most skeptical arguments can be properly ignored under most circumstances. The positive thinker, (and I’m not talking about optimism or making lemonade when life gives you lemons) will move right along constructing systems which will continue to blur the vision of most people who advocate this strong skeptcism. Ask any scientist and they will agree.

The skeptics will find themselves unemployed, or incarcerated or hungry or poor while screaming out that none of these things are real, or that none of it is fair because it’s all just a delusion and there can be no foundation for such things. What gets me the most about this is that they often dismiss postive constructivist metaphysics while clinging on to the notion that the “cosmos” are full of chaos. I ask myself what exactly is the distinction here between “acceptable” skeptical or nihilistic metaphysics and that of positivism? On what grounds do we throw out the system builders metaphysics while maintaining a justification for the metaphysics of “chaotic cosmos”.

Anyway, skepicism is dead. If you don’t beleive me, go sit on a train track and try and deduct the train away as it approaches. Tell is that it has no foundation in the cosmos and that you wont be subject to is because you think it’s built from a bunch of delusions about time, space and causation. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

I think you may be confusing the skeptic with the solipsist. I consider myself somewhat of a skeptic, and I believe that when it comes to knowledge there isn’t any if knowledge is defined as a true absolutely justified belief. None such belief could ever be justified absolutely, though I believe there are degrees to which beliefs can be said to be justified short of being knowledge. Our senses for example, though they are ultimately not objective or any means with which to get undoubtedly correct data, are fairly reliable.

I don’t think there is any real problem with saying not any beliefs are known - as in absolutely true/justified…it may be where science, religion, and philosophy part ways.

I’m not sure if you are speaking out of pretension or genuine pity for the overly skeptical.

In any case, I think that this supposedly distasteful state of deducing all knowledge into meaninglessness is a rite of passage for the beginner philosophical thinker. I’d argue, that it is better for someone to doubt everything than believe in something he/she is unsure of - even if it his or her two hands existing before them, or something as apparently concrete. It’s part of the learning process.

Skepticism is perfectly acceptable conduct in my opinion, and definitely alive. No concluding milestone or plateau of acceptance of knowledge (positivism) needs to be reached, that would be stifling? I mean, why should people give up their truths/ideologies for the sake of a more typically accomplished argument anyway?

Also, I think your train example is a hyperbolic disaster that serves more as a fit of mockery than for point proving.

The statement was made of both pretension and genuine pity for the overly skeptical. I agree with you that it’s better to doubt some things than it is to just accept whatever is put in front of you, but when skeptics try and argue against things like science as an enterprise it just becomes foolish and seems uninformed about the nature of scientific epistemology.

Why give up truths and ideologies for the sake of more accomplished arguments? Because they are more accomplished.

And the train example is somewhat of a mockery, but it’s intended to illustrate just how absurd pure skepticism of all knowledge taken ad absurdum leads to a certain rhetorical peril.

To be accomplished, to strive for a sense of completeness and wholeness is not necessarily everyone’s prioritized goal. That’s a silly generalization, when speaking of the criteria of a good argument.

I agree with the denial of apparently empirical truths as an annoyance, I see how it can get to people because a foundation can never be made with that person for the sake of argument … but I also admire the fatalistic nature of the situation - the blind perseverance…

But then, maybe it’s not blind perseverance? Couldn’t a skeptic easily argue that science and these empirical truths you speak of are subject to doubt because they are defined and exist solely in the realms of language and numbers? Drawings? Maybe interpretive dance is a more accurate way to calculate gravitational pull after all. These might not be a strong arguments for you, the doubting of numerical calculations, but you’re not the point, which is what makes skepticism, or any other philosophical perspective work…?

I think what I’m trying to say is that there is always a loophole for someone to jump through, and all loopholes are valid as long as they are stood up for, skepticism included.

I agree that skepticism has its place. I just think that it’s amongst the dead. Just because something is doable doesn’t make it worthwhile. And like anything, skepticism done properly is useful and can be a worthwhile endeavor. The ones that I’m arguing against in particular are the ones who hold it as a doctrine. The problem that I’m addressing is that of absolutism in skepticism. It just seems like an irreconcilable contradiction to me.

Critical thinking transforms a useful servant into a tyrannical master, for there is nothing which cannot be doubted by doubt. That younger people naturally veer down that path has less to do with seeking truth and more to do with the intoxicated adolescent joy of tearing things down.

Adolescent joy. Well put.

I agree Smears. Everyone always says ‘you can’t proove it’ or something when you talk about ideas on topics, especially topics like Astronomy, Religon or Metaphysics. Shouldn’t the point of philosophy be to get somewhere by discerning what is most probable?

It’s possible there is no God, but it’s just as possible as there being a God. Or is it? Perhaps, and it’s very probable that there are things that can tip the scales- different ideas. We don’t really know, and nobody will until they die, so in the meantime- we formulate a reasonable hypothesis based on what we currently know in order to get somewhere beyond the norm. The key is to go beyond just plain facts and ask questions like ‘Is X more probable than Y, or is Y more probable than X?’

A lot of people like to argue for the sake of argument, and they just waste time feeding their ego. I don’t bother with those people.

They just clutter up the whole argument circuit with horseshit.

Skepticism is a necessary step in every discovery. It should not be the final step, but it is an excellent first step!

True, but you shouldn’t stop after the first step.

Fair enough. I think there should be an instructional section of the site that gives people a reasonable understanding of the proper application of skepticism.

I doubt it.

It’s my skepticism that makes me choose the safest option.

Skepticism is not dead. Some forms of skepticism may be dead. An early form of skepticism is sometimes illustrated by a story or parable about a skeptic who required constant supervision, because he doubted all things so completely that he was in constant danger of running into some hazard. This form of skepticism, if it ever truly existed, is certainly dead. Not only are other forms of skepticism not dead; they are inherent to philosophy.

You do not make the distinction between various forms of skepticism explicit in your post, but there is evidence that assent to it implicitly. The evidence for the implicit assent to the proposition that various forms of skepticism exist are: (a) your mention of abuse of skeptical arguments, (b) your mention of pseudo-skeptics, (c) your mention of extreme cases. It is important not to conflate the various forms of any category of philosophical theory. Skepticism is, in fact, a category of philosophical theory, not any single theory. Your post would look very different, as would your title, if you gave proper respect to the range of skeptical positions.

:astonished:

Firstly, I will say what I agree with you about. You are correct that: (a) skepticism is a necessary element of beginning in philosophy [1], (b) skeptical arguments are powerful enough that philosophers sometimes abuse and misapply them, (c) a radical skeptical argument cannot be used to prove any proposition - it defeats all propositions equally [2], (d) the type of skepticism mentioned in “c” is utterly worthless, and paralyzing to human activity and the project of understanding what we think of as knowledge, (e) some forms of skepticism should be ignored.

=D>

Secondly, I will say I disagree with you about. You are incorrect that: (f) all forms of skepticism are dead, (g) all forms of skepticism should be ignored, (h) the abuse of skeptical arguments is indicative of all skeptics, (i) no forms of skepticism are positive, (j) no forms of skepticism are inescapable realities for humans, (k) your presentation of the “hands” argument, and how that relates to some forms of skepticism and not others [3].

[-X

Skepticism is not dead. You conflate multiple forms of skepticism, and fail to sort them out and level your reasonable criticisms against their proper targets. Your argument is with lazy philosophers, not with skepticism.

There are limits to human knowledge. Positive skepticism seeks to explore those limits so that we can respect them in our formulations of theories of knowledge. Positive skepticism reduces absolute knowledge to practical knowledge.

:wink:

[1] A very general form of skepticism that simply treats all propositions as being “on the table” so-to-speak for argumentation, revision, and rejection is a necessary element for beginning in philosophy.

[2] A very specific form of skepticism that outright denies that anything can ever be known in any way (however limited), and that the truth-values of propositions are meaningless.

[3] In the case of an existence-of-hands-skeptic, the philosopher in question might be skeptic of one of two things, and it isn’t always clear which. The philosopher might be skeptical that “what appears to me phenomenally as hands have any external, physical existence” or that “the phenomenon that I think of as hands, may not be a phenomenon of hands”.

Your argument is with the second type, because from a linguistic standpoint, since “hands” is a name that is a description that corresponds to the phenomenon in question, it is false to question that “those” are “hands”.

Your argument is not with the first type, because whether one is an indirect realist, or an idealist, it remains the case that we are only directly familiar with phenomena. If there is an external world that is real, it is still always experienced indirectly through the senses, and therefore one can never obtain verification that the external world matches the phenomenon that stands for it. Therefore it is necessary for the “positive thinker” to assent to this skeptical caveat as a limitation on human knowledge. It is reasonable for the positive thinker to do this, because it is negative to ignore such limitations.

It’s nice to see that you agree with me about the things I actually said, and that none of the things in the section where you say what you disagree with me are actually in my post. Thanks.

Seriously show me where I assert any of these things.

Secondly, I will say I disagree with you about. You are incorrect that: (f) all forms of skepticism are dead, (g) all forms of skepticism should be ignored, (h) the abuse of skeptical arguments is indicative of all skeptics, (i) no forms of skepticism are positive, (j) no forms of skepticism are inescapable realities for humans, (k) your presentation of the “hands” argument, and how that relates to some forms of skepticism and not others [3].

Smears,

I’m sorry if you feel that I am misrepresenting your position. Thank you for responding, I am happy to provide further elucidations to my counter-position. Respectfully, I hope that we can engage in a dialectic here, and resolve the contradictions in your position.

You frame your criticism of skepticism as a categorical attack. This is evidenced by your title “Skepticism is Dead”, by the fact that you do very little to make a distinction between “good skepticism” and “bad skepticism”.

I admit that you say most skeptical arguments can be ignored, not all skeptical arguments. But you don’t explain which skeptical arguments cannot be ignored, and the tone of your post is of a general rejection of skepticism. This leads me to think that you were merely being diplomatic by saying “most” instead of “all”, so I treated your post as if you had said “all”, giving me a clearer position to define my own in contrast to. It also gives you an opportunity to clarify your thoughts, and I am completely willing to concede that I may have countered a straw-man if your final position turns out to be significantly more moderate than it appeared to me to be.

Here is the central contradiction in your position that lead me to all of this: on the one hand, you say that extreme skepticism is the problem, and on the other hand you say that most skeptical arguments can be ignored, that skepticism is dead, that skepticism belongs amongst the dead, etc.

So what am I to think? Since your title is “skepticism is dead” and because you spend so much time attacking skepticism, it seemed to me that the best interpretation was an attack that encompassed so much that you might as well have have said it was an attack on all of skepticism.

You say that most skeptical arguments can be reasonably ignored. I think that almost no skeptical arguments ought to be ignored at all, and that although the very most extreme cases of skepticism must be set aside in practical life, they are for the most part true.

I think the bolded paragraph is the crux of the issue, and where further discussion on this matter should be directed once we have completed our current effort of clarification.

If you honestly did mean that most, but not quite all, skeptical arguments are dead; should be ignored; are abused - if that’s what you really think, then please interpret my position as disagreeing with that. I think skepticism is far more valuable and important than you make it out to be. As I said, I think the problem is with a few very lazy philosophers, and not with skepticism.

The positive thinker must not ignore skepticism as he goes about constructing his systems. He must take skepticism into account, or else he will find himself with a system that fails to respect the limitations on human knowledge.
[/b]

I’m talking about the extreme cases where skepticism is misapplied. Check the bold parts. I know you want to keep saying that I’m wrong, and misinterpreting my statements, but come on guy, I’m just not saying what you’re saying I am.

Excellent. If the bold part is the only thing you are committed to, then I don’t have a problem. That part by itself is unproblematic, and I agree with it. It is fallacious to use radical skepticism to simultaneously undermine an opposing argument while propping up one’s own.

But if that is the part that is important to you, then you are committing yourself to discarding some of your other statements. For example, since the bolded statement is a criticism of a logical fallacy, then you are not criticizing skepticism. If you aren’t criticizing skepticism, merely pointing out a fallacious application of radical skepticism, then some of your statements don’t fit. It doesn’t make sense in that context to say things like “skepticism is dead”; “most skeptical arguments can be ignored under most circumstances”; “the positive thinker will [ignore skepticism]”; “skepticism has its place … amongst the dead”.

Furthermore, it does not follow from that logical fallacy that radical skepticism is untrue. (Although I am more interested in positive skepticism than I am in radical skepticism). It merely shows that radical skepticism cannot be used to settle a dispute between two competing theories.

It remains contradictory to limit your criticism to fallacious applications of radical skepticism while also saying that most skeptical arguments can be ignored. Unless all you mean by “most skeptical arguments” is “this specific fallacious application of radical skepticism”…

If you admit that the bolded section is the only part that you are committed to, then I gladly withdraw the criticisms that apply to the discarded statements.