Scepticism

3 marks: What is philosophical scepticism?

3 marks: What is philosophical scepticism?

Philosophical scepticism is the position that one or more of our usual methods of justification for claiming that our beliefs amount to knowledge are inadequate, so we do not in fact have knowledge

3 marks: What is the difference between philosophical scepticism and normal incredulity?

Philosophical scepticism is a theoretical worry about the foundations of our knowledge which cannot be alleviated with evidence, ordinary doubt is a practical worry which can be alleviated with evidence.

3 marks: What is the distinction between local and global scepticism?

Local scepticism is where justification for a particular belief or class of beliefs is called into question (eg the existence of God, or moral facts), whereas global scpeticism is the claim that we cannot know anything at all as none of our beliefs have sufficient justification.

3 marks: What are Descartes’ three ‘waves of doubt?

Descartes' three waves of doubt are sceptical worries that 1) any given experience could be an illusion, 2) at any given time he could be dreaming or 3) that an evil demon could be decieving him about all his knowledge.

5 marks: Explain the role/function of philosophical scepticism within epistemology

definition of philosophical scepticism

Philosophical scepticism is used to test the strength of our knowledge and how we justify it.

It undercuts our usual justifications (eg perception, moral beliefs) and reveals to us where we might be making assumptions. Descartes, for example, used PS to test all of his beliefs so he could establish which beliefs he knew for certain.

5 marks: Explain how Descartes responds to the challenge of scepticism

Proof of the external world:

PI: I clearly and distinctly perceive a world of external physical objects

P2: This cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects.

P3: If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary (under my control)

P4: However, they are not voluntary.

P5: If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive

P6 However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver.

C: Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects.

C2: Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects.

5 marks: Explain Locke's argument from the involuntary nature of our experience

Locke argued that because he cannot control his perceptual Experience, in the same way he can control his memory and imagination, it must have an external cause. So there must be an external world. Locke gives example that he can shut his eyes and choose to imagine light, but if he looks at the sun at noon he cannot ‘avoid’ the idea of light being produced in his mind.

This is  inductive. Inductive arguments can be strong or weak, but the conclusions he reaches can never be guaranteed. He cannot prove that the external world exists using this reasoning, but he can make us think it is probable. It is the case that a particularly good simulation would also provide us with involuntary and coherent experiences, so the worry that we are BIVs cannot be completely solved.

5 marks: Explain the argument from the coherence of various kinds of experience, as developed by Locke and Catharine Trotter Cockburn

Both say that the way our senses cohere with each other suggests the external world does exist. A fire is evidenced by sight, sound, heat, and pain. Cockburn adds the fact that different senses from the same object are very different (eg. Sights and sounds) and we can learn which senses cohere and begin to reliably predict which senses go together.

5 marks: Explain how Berkeley’s Idealism responds to scepticism.

The reason that BIV/evil demon arguments are compelling is because we cannot be sure if there is a difference between experience and reality. Berkeley removes that distinction reality is what we experience and nothing more! Berkeley starts from a position of there not being a mind-independent world of physical objects, instead reality is made up of our ideas. Our knowledge of reality is therefore secure, because we cannot be deceived about the ideas that we have. However, Berkeley still relies on God as guaranteeing that there is a reality, so we might still ask the question, how do we know it is a good God (and not an evil demon or scientist) behind our experiences?

5 marks: Explain how reliabilism responds to scepticism.

If we take it as true that one of the following scenarios is true: BIV (or similar) is true and I do not have knowledge of an external world. 2. BIV (or similar) is false and I do have knowledge of the external world. If we require an internal justification then it is impossible to know whether (1) or (2) is true (as both appear identical to us), so we cannot have knowledge at all. However if reliabilism is true and our knowledge has to be from a reliable process then it just has to be the case that (2) is true for us to have knowledge. So according to reliabilism we can have knowledge of the world, but we can't show that that the process is reliable. Both views have downsides, but if we need to internally justify then knowledge is impossible, if an external reliable process is needed then knowledge is at least possible.

Criticise:

The reliabilist says we cannot know we are not BIVS, but if we are not BIVs then we do have knowledge. This could be compared to having £1,000,000 in a bank account we know nothing about it may be the case we are millionaires but this is meaningless unless we are aware of the £1,000,000. In the same way to have knowledge of the external world, but not be able to justify that knowledge might be considered a meaningless claim.

5 marks:

5 marks:

5 marks:

How indirect realism could lead to scepticism (Locke)

A sceptic could argue that john Locke’s indirect realism lead to scepticism about the external world, as If we are only directly aware of sense data then it is possible that sense data does not actually resemble reality