Untitled Essay Research Paper Question Can scepticism

Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Question: Can scepticism be defended, perhaps in a limited form .1. Introduction

This essay centres around what it means to know something is true and also why it is

important to distinguish between what you know and do not or can not know.

The sceptic in challenging the possibility of knowing anything challenges the basis on

which all epistemology is based. It is from this attack on epistemology that the defence

of scepticism is seen.

2. Strong Scepticism

Strong scepticism states that it is not possible to know anything. That is we cannot have

absolute knowledge of anything. This can however immediately have the reflexive argument

turned on it and have the question begged of it: “If it is not possible to know

anything then how is it you know that nothing is knowable .”. Strong Scepticism is

therefore unable to be defended.

3. A Definition of Knowledge

Knowledge can be said to be information that the brain has received that meets a certain

set of criteria. When someone states that they know something they must also believe that,

that something is so. If they did not believe in it then how could they take it in as

knowledge ., they would instead be doubtful of it and look for evidence or justification

as to why they should believe it.

Secondly for someone to believe in something they must also believe that it is true. If

they did not believe that it was true then what is mentioned above would not occur.

So, so far it is decided that knowledge should be true belief. How does one come to the

conclusion that something is true however .. We seek justification. The justification

really is the most important part of the criteria because without it one cannot say

something is true and therefore cannot say that one believes.

This does however bring up the question of how does something become justified ., do we

hear it from other people ., see it on the news .. The justification of something really

depends on its predictability. If something becomes predictable then it can becomes

justified aswell. For example, I know that the sun will rise tomorrow is a fair thing to

say because I believe this is so, I believe this is true, and I am justified in believing

this due to my past experience* of the predictableness of the sun rising each day.

The only problem with meeting the set of criteria laid out above is that one must use one

senses to do so and as shall be shown in the next section they are not the most reliable

of instruments.

4. Perceptions

A persons sensual perceptions are generally their means of receiving information but how

much can we trust our senses .. Two examples of a persons sensual perception leading them

astray are as follows.

Two people are looking at a white object. The first person is looking at the object

through a transparent red sheet and the other through a transparent green sheet. Neither

person knows that the sheets are there so both come away with different conclusions and

perceptions as to what colour the object in front of them is. (Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas,

1992, pp. 46-47)

Another example is when two people are looking at an oblong object from different angles

one may see a perfect rectangle the other a perfect square. (Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas,

1992, pp. 46-47)

The point I am making here is that sensual perceptions are all relevant to the position of

the observer. This is not a good situation for something that we contrive to get

justification for our knowledge from.

5. The Brain in the Vat Argument

This argument is similar to the one in Plato’s republic in that it involves an

imaginary situation where the people or person involved believes that they have knowledge

(Plato, Cave Analogy, Book VII).

In the brain in the vat example the brain believes that it is a fully functioning human

being and there exists an external world around it. The reason for the brain believing

that it knows this is that it has reasonable belief due to the fact that everything in

it’s environment coheres, this is obviously not so however if everything does not

cohere (Harrison, 1966-67, pp 179-189).

The sceptical argument from this however is that it is impossible to know anything if one

does not know the initial fact that one is a brain in a vat. This can be shown as follows.

Suppose that you claim to know that you are sitting reading a book. You presumably also

know that if you are sitting reading, you are not a brain in a vat. We can surely conclude

that if you know that you are sitting reading, you know that you are not a brain in a vat,

and hence (by simple modus tollens) that since you don’t know that you are not a

brain in a vat (agreed above) you don’t know you are sitting reading. (Dancy, 1985,

p. 10).

The epistemist rejoin however states that this does not matter. The reason given is that

since there is

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать