More on skepticism - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

we cannot know p unmitigated skepticism we cannot reasonably know p modality we do not know p we cannot know p modality of knowledge that knowledge is impossible to have sextus on disagreement if there is a disagreement on p then you have to suspend judgement Also just because there is a dispute does not mean one has to come to an agreement and it can be left undecided. agrileppa's trilemma reasonable belief about the legitimacy of your standard will require legit employment of another standard or no standard. internalism is circular reason stating that knowledge is a required standard. rusell's argument states that one hypothesis is more probable than another hypothesis. pick the hypothesis with the most common sense. common sense is if what you actually see/feel is real and can make sense with what is happening. dream hypothesis no simple account for what is occurring in front of you. nothing unifies the visual phenomena all just cosmic coincidence. opposition to rusell skeptical argument is more simple than common sense hypothesis b/c it postulates probability about everything. opposition to skeptical argument deny premise 2 of the skeptical argument and solidify premise 2 in first argument makes conclusion false. closure principal if any subject knows the probability and the subject know p entail q. Then S can know the conclusion (q) David Hume pioneer of skeptical argument. Presses us to think about our grounds. States that evidence doesn't make claims probable. deduction chain of reasoning premise true makes conclusion true induction premise true does not make conclusion true all the time the reason the past justifies the future according to hume PUN: principal uniformity of nature PUN allows us to believe the sun will rise tomorrow ( we can believe things reasonably due to inductive reasoning of patterns) math only, deductive argument that does not use inductive inference of PUN

opposition to pun so one justifies induction w/PUN, but then needs to justify PUN with induction again (not making it a convincing argument) Akreppas dilemma basically the notion of a a circular argument and if you pick one stop its unjustified. what are you allowed to believe in w/o proof. induction and skepticism analytic truths by definition, hold as a matter of logic and meaning given to terms ( a priori) ex) all bachelors are male and unmarried synthetic truths you don't know by definition a bachelor is in class Immaunel kent believe all truths are this Elliot saber solution to induction cannot use induction to prove induction states that if a conclusion is diff. from premises it doesn't make the argument circular opp. Max Black def. of a circular argument is to concrete. Why black's argument is not good? use of counter induction basis of closure principal states that in order for p to be on the basis of q. Q is a postulation. Ex I know i have hands only if you know that you are not a brain in the vat, thus making the conclusion I know I have hands. opp. to closure principal deny premise 1, deny conclusion, state the argument is invalid, or accept the argument (don't do this on the test kids) only works if one is an externalist externalism the belief that what one experience such as the clapping of one's hand can constitues an individual in "knowing something"....