Lecture 9.2 Response to skepticism
Lecture Overview
Course: phil20490 Knowledge and Scepticism
Lecture Number: 9.2
Topic: Responses to Scepticism
Argument for External World Scepticism
Key Points:
Evidence does not completely rule out the possibility that I am a brain-in-a-vat (BIV).
Knowledge (p) is only gained if evidence completely rules out the possibility that p is false.
Therefore, one does not know they are not a BIV.
To know one has a body, one must know they are not a BIV.
Hence, if one does not know they are not a BIV, they cannot know they have a body.
Conclusion: One does not know they have a body.
Sceptical Reasoning
Sceptic's Argument:
You do not know you are not a BIV.
If you do not know you are not a BIV, you do not know you have hands.
Therefore, you do not know you have hands.
Counter Reasoning:
I know you have hands.
If I know you have hands, I know you are not a BIV.
Thus, I know you are not a BIV.
Moore's Challenge: Which inference should we prefer?
The Contextualist Response
Definition:
Epistemic contextualism holds that key epistemic terms vary by context, affecting their meaning.
Examples: Terms like 'I', 'you', 'that', 'good', 'bad', etc. are context-sensitive.
Contextualism about Knowledge:
Contextualism asserts that 'knows' is context-sensitive and reflects language theory rather than knowledge definition.
Simplified Contextualism Model
Definition (S knows that p):
S believes that p.
p is true.
S’s evidence rules out contextually relevant possibilities where p is false.
Condition (3) differs based on context but aligns with the Evidence Principle.
Questions Raised by Contextualism
Question 1: What defines our evidence?
Potentially includes perceptual experiences and memories.
Supports an internalist view of justification and knowledge.
Question 2: What does it mean for evidence to rule out relevant possibilities?
E.g., seeing a cat rules out the possibility there is no cat unless countered by hallucination or deception.
The Role of Context in Knowledge
Knowledge Contexts:
Some contexts permit knowing (e.g., belief and evidence rule out false possibilities), while others do not (considering deceptive scenarios).
Acknowledges that knowledge can fluctuate between contexts without contradicting itself.
Contextualism's Interaction with Scepticism
Contextualists argue scepticism arises from excessively demanding contexts, while less stringent contexts allow for knowledge.
Philosophers debate the balance between scepticism and the assertion of knowledge in adverse scenarios.
Contextualism: Benefits and Costs
Benefits:
Explains why scepticism seems compelling without altering behavior; people recognize scepticism in high-stakes contexts but revert to low-stakes contexts easily.
Illustrates dynamic knowledge understanding in conversations.
Costs:
Difficulty expressing the theory consistently due to conflicting knowledge standards.
Challenges in communicating shared knowledge across contexts.
Further Reading and Watching
Recommended articles and sources for deeper understanding.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Contextualism in Epistemology.
Hannon, M. ‘Scepticism and Contextualism’.
DeRose, K. ‘Solving the Sceptical Problem’.
The Sensitivity Response
Moore and the Sceptic's Agreement:
Holds to the Closure Principle (CP): Knowledge can be inferred from known premises.
Arguments:
Sceptic's Argument vs. Moore's Proof using CP:
BIVs lack hands.
If I have hands, I'm not a BIV.
I have hands.
Conclusion from (2) and (3) leads to the assertion of knowledge.
Arguments For and Against Closure Principle
In Favor:
Intuitively seems logical to think knowledge extends to valid inferences.
Against:
Some propositions may be too difficult to know, despite logical inference.
Applications of Sensitivity and Closure Principle
Lottery Case:
Knowledge claimed based on logical recognition of unlikely events, but may not truly be known.
Philosophical Implications:
Challenges the connection between knowledge and deceived perceptions of reality (e.g. cleverly painted mules vs. zebras).
Nozick's Sensitivity Condition
Understanding the Condition:
A subject S knows that p if:
S believes p.
In closest possible scenarios where p is false, S does not believe p.
Implications:
Fails for false beliefs.
Application Examples: Gettier Cases and Scepticism
Gettier Cases:
Demonstrate sensitivity failure through situational similarities.
Impact on Scepticism:
Queries about sensitivity inform beliefs regarding BIV scenarios and physical traits like having hands.
Conclusion of Sensitivity Response
Evaluation of Claims:
Nozick's position conflicts with CP, recognizing limits of knowledge assertions.
Skepticism produces challenges for consistent relations between knowledge and reality.