Damn scepticism...

[BeBro]

...or "How can you possibly be a scepticist?"

Philosophers, for what is scepticism good? Some people seem to think it is the best excuse to avoid knowledge. I sometimes experience this kind of people when I give arguments in a debate, and they can´t counter them. So their last refuge is to say something like "But we can´t know anything for sure!". Great!

As a philosophical amateur I think scepticism is a good way to avoid "totalitarian" POVs (esp. in political or ethical discussions), and in that way I think it is very useful. I think it is good to have in mind that one *could* be wrong, but in real life there´s always a point when you have to make decisions or judgements. But how do you get these decisions or judgements when you´re always in doubt about them? Or at which point (philosophical) do you/can you leave the doubts behind you?

What sense does it make to refer always to the problem that there is a possibility that the world out side doesn´t exist? Isn´t it enough that most of us would think it exists (as long as we still have in mind that it is possible to question that reality)?

As said the biggest problem for me is not scepticism in natural science, but when it comes to ethical stuff, because I think it is somehow annoying when one counters arguments against the most stupid (yeah, I know it is all subjective ) positions with a general attack on what can we know at all...

Thanks

[loinburger]

At some point extreme skepticism will begin to interfere with your ability to function in everyday society. At that point (if not a bit sooner) you've taken it too far, unless, of course, you become a hermit, in which case ethics really don't matter anymore (who're you going to harm if you're living in a cave somewhere?).

[DaShi]

I doubt that this is a problem.

[loinburger]

It really isn't, in my experience most extreme skeptics are just hypocrites -- they'll express beliefs that would prevent their functioning in society if they actually held said beliefs, but they're still able to function because they say one thing and do another. It's annoying, but (from what I've seen) not particularly dangerous or whatever.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DaShi
I doubt that this is a problem.

[Oerdin]

DaShi does come up with some good puns doesn't he?

[loinburger]

Is that what it was? I thought it was something else, like a "pistillate" or something. Somebody bring me a grammar nazi!

[Oerdin]

I guess it really wasn't a pun but it was still funny.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by loinburger
It really isn't, in my experience most extreme skeptics are just hypocrites -- they'll express beliefs that would prevent their functioning in society if they actually held said beliefs, but they're still able to function because they say one thing and do another.

I recently discussed with a conspiracy theorist. When I left his "theory" in ruins his answer was something like "of course criticism is ok, but please be tolerant, because you can´t have knowledge of the ultimate truth". At this point I was in danger to forget my humanist education, because this translates to me as: "It is ok to doubt anything except that what I´m saying!"

But this case was pretty easy because this guy was in fact just stepping into dogmatism. It can be damn hard to argue with more intelligent people. Of course then it is also more interesting, but it is extremely dissatisfying when they always end in the great "there´s nothing for sure" argument. Then why discuss at all?

Hm, but maybe I´m just whining a bit about people who don´t accept my superior arguments

Oh and I doubt DaShi does exist.

[Adalbertus]

But this case was pretty easy because this guy was in fact just stepping into dogmatism. It can be damn hard to argue with more intelligent people. Of course then it is also more interesting, but it is extremely dissatisfying when they always end in the great "there´s nothing for sure" argument. Then why discuss at all?

Sometimes, reality is dissatisfying. Discussion still makes sense if it opens other ways to look at things or you get more information. -- I've seen both cases where people hid behind scepticism and where a bunch of rumours and wild theories was presented as facts and defended by "you can't doubt everything".

Oh, and I'm super-scepticist: I doubt scepticism exists

[loinburger]

Originally posted by BeBro
Then why discuss at all?

That's why an appeal to extreme skepticism is usually hypocrisy -- if we can't really know anything, then the skeptic shouldn't have been arguing for his/her position in the first place. An appeal to skepticism after the fact essentially means "You can't really know anything, but I can know everything."

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BeBro


Oh and I doubt DaShi does exist.

You're not the only one.

[St Leo]

I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid" – then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for evenhandedness at all.
- Douglas Adams, interview, American Atheist

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro
...or "How can you possibly be a scepticist?"

Philosophers, for what is scepticism good?

Look, I'm a philosopher, so I'll have a go.

Philosophical scepticism isn't a practical thesis. It doesn't even always take the form you are talking about (scepticism about the external world).

If we don't have certain knowledge it doesn't mean that all our beliefs are of equal weight. That's why many philosophers have argued that "knowledge" should be understood as warranted assertion or the best explanation or something like that. There's also a school of thought that blames everything on Plato who argued in the Theaetetus that knowledge had to be both true and infallible. If we look at the way the word is actually used there doesn't seem to be that good a case for infallibility.

I've thought about scepticism a great deal, as a theoretical issue. I think that when a theory turns up ridiculously sceptical conclusions it is time to look at the premises and see if it they are as solid as we thought they were. Scepticism should be treated as a reason to reject a theory rather than a reason for endorsing it: since any philosophical theory is supposed to based on ordinary practice.

For example, many philosophers have argued that we cannot infer from our private sense data to the existence of an external world. But what are these sense data? I've never seen one and I can't quite think what they are. We could perhaps reinterpret them as physical states of a brain or sense organs, but then they are part of some larger theory instead of the epistemic fundamentals they were supposed to be.

I think the best way to get around scepticism is to examine the roots of the sceptical arguments to see if they make sense - or indeed if it makes sense to look for some ultimate foundation of human knowledge. The later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein is a good start.

The only practical sceptic I can think of is the Ancient Sceptic, Pyrrho, who according to Diogenes Laertius had people following him around to make sure he didn't walk off cliffs and suchlike.

[Zero]

Originally posted by loinburger

That's why an appeal to extreme skepticism is usually hypocrisy -- if we can't really know anything, then the skeptic shouldn't have been arguing for his/her position in the first place. An appeal to skepticism after the fact essentially means "You can't really know anything, but I can know everything."

However, if ur just looking for an argument/trolling, being a skeptic is practical. Cause no matter what position your opponent takes, you can always argue with him

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BeBro
Philosophers, for what is scepticism good? Some people seem to think it is the best excuse to avoid knowledge. I sometimes experience this kind of people when I give arguments in a debate, and they can´t counter them. So their last refuge is to say something like "But we can´t know anything for sure!". Great!

Looks like you are talking about Hume's extreme skepticism, which is not a defensible position, because you can always apply it on itself:

"So how can we be sure that we can't know anything for sure?"

A moderate form of skepticism is good, though, because it allows you to shrug off all forms of wackos.