Since we can't step outside of our perceptions, there's no reason to supposed we're inside an objective reality. It's merely a philosophical exercise in what sort of wild scenarios we can imagine which aren't incompatible with our experiences. — T Clark
You're asking this question by starting out saying objective reality exists. We're not in a situation were we can do that. We can only imagine the possibility. — T Clark
I think you are a victim of a failure of imagination. It is a common intellectual malady to believe that words and the world are the same thing. — T Clark
A Heideggerian critique of that might be that our being in the world is primary, and so abstracting away from that to ask radically skeptical questions about our perceptions of the world is to make a fundamental mistake. — Marchesk
This is assuming that our perceptions are subjective, and thus there is an objective gap that needs to be crossed to get at an external world, if it exists.
But one might start over by rejecting the notion that perceptions are subjective, or at least deny that perceptions make us aware of subjective objects (sense datum). — Marchesk
Are you saying that our experiences are objective? I'm not even sure what that means. I would have thought that personal experiences are the essence of subjectivity. — T Clark
Which is begging the question. Who says being in the world is primary (other than Heidegger)? — T Clark
It [science] claims it is the only valid way of seeing the world. The only institutions I can think of that are similar are some brands of religion. — T Clark
What makes realism more plausible than an evil daemon? One element to this is as follows: Conviction in realism is how I and a majority of the world’s populace—both greatly and poorly educated (education being a separate issue from that of intelligence for me)—navigate the world most pragmatically, for it facilitates an optimal flourishing of awareness in regard to worldly givens. The evil daemon hypothesis, however, presents a lack of reliable predictability as to what will be, and posits no way of reliably establishing what is—and, because of this, is debilitating to the living of life. — javra
My former, yet unanswered question to you was “what justifies the favoring of an evil daemon as true at expense of realism being true?” An answer would now be appreciated. — javra
The title of this thread is “what is scepticism”. In your reoccurring arguments you overwhelmingly favor Descartes’ branch of skepticism, even though in your OP you thoughtfully point to different branches of belief that likewise go by the label of skepticism. — javra
endless stream of debilitating doubts in search for some inexistent grail of absolute certainty. — javra
At any rate, if you seek solace via some promise of an absolute certainty—be it that realism is true or that some evil daemon concept one is momentarily entertaining is false—I’m not one to be of service in this regard. — javra
I don't think what I have asked for is certainty at all. All I have asked for is that the Realist have some account, which he can at least convince himself is true, of how human beings can have any reliable basis at all for the belief that Realism is true. — PossibleAaran
I am not sure that there is anything that favours the evil demon hypothesis over Realism. But we are presently looking for some reliable source for the belief in Realism, and this question has no bearing on that. — PossibleAaran
You express uncertainty that science is always the best way, you are open to other belief systems in other contexts and are skeptical in that sense, but you have not shown any skepticism about the belief that being open to other belief systems in other contexts is right, meta-skepticism if you will, skepticism about the rightness of being skeptical. Maybe being skeptical is wrong, maybe we'd all be better off if we just fervently believed in something? — Inter Alia
As I've said many times on many threads and I will say many times more - metaphysical systems, of which science is one, are not right or wrong, there are more or less useful in particular situations. — T Clark
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not metaphysics. Evolution is a fact in the world. The theory that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution is well supported by factual evidence and is believed by a consensus of those with a strong understanding of human biology, geology, and paleontology. — T Clark
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not metaphysics. — T Clark
That word was cherry-picked and taken out of context.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not metaphysics. — T Clark
But the way it is interpreted has considerable metaphysical implications. I have no doubt at all about the facts of the matter, but considerable doubts about what they are often taken to mean. — Wayfarer
But the way it is interpreted has considerable metaphysical implications. I have no doubt at all about the facts of the matter, but considerable doubts about what they are often taken to mean. — Wayfarer
Right, but science has taken over for metaphysics in the past on questions that can be empirically investigated. At one point, the idea of evolution was metaphysical. That was before Darwin, of course. Same with atomism. — Marchesk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.