Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader

Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader

skepticism an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object, the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

philosophy skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about the limitations of knowledge, a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,

a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
a lack of confidence in positive motives for human conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that is, cynicism and pessimism )Keeton, 1962)

Scientific skepticism
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Common topics that scientifically-skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis, psychic powers, and telepathy (and thus the credibility of parapsychology);

Skepticism The ward skeptic or sekpticim comes from Greek ward to inquire. Sekpticim at its best is not a matter of denial , but of inquiring. ‘ How prone to doubt, how cautions are Wise’ Homer( Odysse)

Skepticism Beliefs (in a certain area) are
Unjustified (target: internalism) Unreliable (target: externalism) So, (a certain kind of) knowledge is impossible Extreme form: all beliefs are unjustified or unreliable; all knowledge is impossible

Empiricus It can be broken down into three categories:
There are at least ten modes of skepticism. It can be broken down into three categories: ● Subjective perceiver ● Objective world ● Relation between perceiver and the world.

Subjective Perceiver Both the powers of the senses and of reasoning may vary across persons. And since knowledge is a product of one and/or the other, and since neither are reliable, knowledge would seem to be in trouble. For instance, a color-blind person sees the world quite differently than everyone else. Moreover, we cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal. For the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which presupposes the ability to know about some aspects of the environment.

Secondly, the personality of the individual might also have an impact on what they observe, since (it is argued) preferences are based on sense-impressions, differences in preferences can be attributed to differences in the way that people are affected by the object.

Third, the perceptions of each individual sense seemingly have nothing in common with the other senses: i.e., the color "red" has little to do with the feeling of touching a red object. This is manifest when our senses "disagree" with each other: for example, a mirage presents certain visible features, but is not responsive to any other kind of sense. In that case, our other senses defeat the impressions of sight. Given that our senses can be shown to be unreliable by appealing to other senses, and so our senses may be incomplete (relative to some more perfect sense that we lack), then it follows that all of our senses may be unreliable.

Fourth, our circumstances when we do any perceiving may be either natural or unnatural, i.e., we may be either in a state of wakefulness or that of sleep. But it is entirely possible that things in the world really are exactly as they appear to be to those in unnatural states (i.e., if everything were an elaborate dream).

We have reasons for doubt that are based on the relationship between objective "facts" and subjective experience. The positions, distances, and places of objects would seem to affect how they are perceived by the person: for instance, the portico may appear tapered when viewed from one end, but symmetrical when viewed at the other; and these features are different. Because they are different features, to believe the object has both properties at the same time is to believe it has two contradictory properties. Since this is absurd, we must suspend judgment about what properties it possesses

We may also observe that the things we perceive are, in a sense, polluted by experience. Any given perception -- say, of a chair -- will always be perceived within some context or other (i.e., next to a table, on a mat, etc.) Since this is the case, we can only speak of ideas as they occur in the context of the other things that are paired with it. We can never know of the true nature of the thing, but only how it appears to us in context

Along the same lines, the skeptic may insist that all things are relative, by arguing that:
Absolute appearances either differ from relative appearances, or they do not. If absolutes do not differ from relatives, then they are themselves relative. But if absolutes do differ from relatives, then they are relative, because all things that differ must differ from something; and to "differ" from something is to be relative to something.

Finally, we have reason to disbelieve that we know anything by looking at problems in understanding the objects themselves. Things, when taken individually, may appear to be very different than when they are in mass quantities: for instance, the shavings of a goat's horn are white when taken alone, yet the horn intact is black.

Skepticism is related to epistemology, or the question of whether knowledge is possible. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic beliefs that are justified without reference to others.

The skeptical response to this can take several approaches
The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that "basic beliefs" must exist amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope[citation needed]. While a foundationalist would use Munchhausen-Trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs, a skeptic would see no problem with admitting the result (although the result is only that there are no certain beliefs).

This skeptical approach is rarely taken to its pyrrhonean extreme by most practitioners. Several modifications have arisen over the years, including the following: Fictionalism would not claim to have knowledge but will adhere to conclusions on some criterion such as utility, aesthetics, or other personal criteria without claiming that any conclusion is actually "true". Philosophical fideism (as opposed to religious Fideism) would assert the truth of some proposition, but does so without asserting certainty.

Some forms of pragmatism would accept utility as a provisional guide to truth but not necessarily a universal decision-maker.

Philosophical fideism (as opposed to religious Fideism) would assert the truth of some proposition, but does so without asserting certainty. Some forms of pragmatism would accept utility as a provisional guide to truth but not necessarily a universal decision-maker.

‘By Doubting we come at the Truth’
( Cicero). The skeptic ask some deep and challenging questions to which there are no quick and easy answers. As a result of studying these questions we can come to a deeper understanding. Foe example why we have any of the belief that we hold? How we can the knowledge we claim? These questions shed the light on the foundations for our belief.

Division of the belief Past Oriented Present Oriented Future Oriented

Belief about the past/present
Past oriented I believe that Egypt asserted its independence in 1952. I believe that Plato taught Aristole. I believe that I had toast and cheese for breakfast Present oriented I believe that my investment are doing well. I believe that my son is studying. I believe that it is sunny day outside.

Future Oriented I believe all Palestine doctorate candidate will answer philosophy questions properly. I believe you well eventually understand this course.

Sources of Skepticism past
Both

Memory The skeptic wants to know whether human memory is ever reliable at all. Most of us will admit that memory is not the dependable thing it purports sometimes to be ‘memory is the thing you forget with’ ( Alexander Chase). How do we know that our memory is reliable? At least I know that my memory is often reliable. How do I know? Simple I can recall many times in the past when I seem to remember parking in a particular place and there the car in fact was.

Justify Memory →reasoning which assumes the truth of the thing → produce evidence
Testimony Testimony is our main source of belief about the past. How do I know that what other people tell me is ever the truth?.... In response to the skeptics what other people have told me has turned out to be true, therefore testimony is sometimes reliable.

Sources of Present Oriented Beliefs
Memory Testimony Experience Sense Experience A great number of present moment beliefs are just rooted in the immediacy and intimacy of a sense experience.

Sources of Skepticisim

Radical Skepticism It suggests a hypothesis so opposed to what we ordinary assume that if it were true, an enormous number of beliefs that we know would be false. The radical skeptic points out that continuing to hold our normal belief requires denying this hypothesis or believing it to be false. Then the typical question will be how we know that it is false.

Radical sketicism about the past
The 5 minute hypothesis This hypothesis is incompatible with all my beliefs concerning anything 5 minutes or more in the past.’ The entire universe sprang into existence from nothing 5 minutes ago, exactly as then it was, apparent wrinkles on peoples’ faces and other signs of age all instantly formed and thoroughly deceptive’.

The skeptic does not believe the five minute hypothesis to be true and he is not to get us to believe it. He is just pointing out that the belief we now have commit us to being convinced that it is false, and he wants to ask us how in the world we know it, or even reasonably believe it to be false. It would just mean that we should withhold our judgment on it, and become correspondingly uncertain about everything in the past over 5 minutes ago.

Radical Skepticism about the present
Descartes used a certain method to try to isolate a definite truth, or something that can not be doubted. Descartes tried to achieve this absolute truth by starting analysis with radical doubt.

Method of doubt He used 3 different foundations of belief in this method: Analysis of the Senses The Dream Hypothesis The Evil Genius

Analysis of the Senses? Descartes doubts that he can trust his senses because they are occasionally wrong. An example of this is a short-haired woman may look like a man from far away.

Analysis of the Senses Skeptical Hypothesis What Can Be Doubted
What Cannot be doubted Faculty Science The Senses Deceive us at a distance The size of the sun and stars, the shape of towers and the color of mountains Things observed close at hand, e.g. that I am now seated in a room etc. The senses Astronomy

”What has deceived me once may deceive me again.” --Descartes
The Dream Hypothesis Descartes believes that there are no sure signs for him to tell whether he is awake or asleep. Since he cannot trust his senses, he concludes that there is no way to determine whether he is dreaming or awake.

Although he does say that there are certain “truths” that are consistent, whether he is awake or asleep. Example: two plus three equals five, and that a square has four sides in his sleep, and while awake.

The Dream Hypothesis Skeptical Hypothesis What Can Be Doubted
What Cannot be doubted Faculty Science The Dream Hypothesis That I am seated in this room, that I am clothed, that I have hands, eyes or a body at all Truths of mathematics, eg. 2+2 = 4, squares have four sides etc. The imagination Physiology, physics, medicine etc What I perceive by the senses may be the deceptions of a dream.” --Descartes

The Evil Genius? Descartes' most powerful skeptical hypothesis was that there was an evil genius trying to deceive him. This would challenge the belief that the physical world exists, the belief in simple statements of fact, and it would then question the validity of reason itself. But not even an evil genius could lead us to believe that we ourselves don’t exist.

Radical Skepticism about the future
The futuristic points out that the future does not exist. In order for a belief to be true, the object about which it is true must be among the furniture of reality, and that object must have the property attributed to it in that belief. For it to be true that grass is green, there must be such a thing as grass, and it must have the property of being green.

“I think, therefore I am”
Since he is able to think, then it is derived that he is alive and breathing.

about the ideas that I have.”
“I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.” “I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.” Meaning that each idea that develops in our brain cannot be doubted because we think, it´s not mistaken.

Rests upon the principle of sufficient reason
“There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e.,the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).” Rests upon the principle of sufficient reason Meaning that to create a big effect a bigger cause is needed ‘It is impossible to derive the more perfect from the less perfect.’

“I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.”
Once perfection is pointed out to someone, then he cannot deny having the idea. Since the idea is already there, therefor it is natural. When everyone believes an idea is perfect, nothing can prove it wrong.

Thesis and Recommendation
Thesis: Knowledge (of a certain kind) is impossible Recommendation: So, one ought to inquire. Problem: How can the extreme skeptic get from the thesis to the recommendation? It seems that it requires an inference Extreme skepticism undercuts such inferences

Daoism: Zhuangzi (c. -350) Intellectual distinctions correspond to nothing in reality There’s no point to doing anything Zhu Xi: “Laozi still wanted to do something, but Zhuangzi didn’t want to do anything at all.” Daoist temple

Identity of Contraries
Can we be completely objective? No— the objective and subjective are intertwined Objective —> subjective: you can reach objective knowledge only by depending on your own subjective mental states Subjective —> objective: your being in a mental state depends on and gives rise to objective facts about you

Three in the Morning “A keeper of monkeys said with regard to their rations of chestnuts that each monkey was to have three in the morning and four at night. But at this the monkeys were very angry, so the keeper said they might have four in the morning and three at night, with which arrangement they were all well pleased. The actual number of the chestnuts remained the same, but there was an adaptation to the likes and dislikes of those concerned. Such is the principle of putting oneself into subjective relation with externals.”

Skepticism v. Relativism
Relativism: There are no universally valid truths about the world Beliefs are true only relative to a society culture historical epoch interpretative community individual person

Knowledge of truth is impossible, because… Skepticism: our beliefs are unjustified or unreliable Relativism: there is no truth to know Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things ”

These might be seen as allies: If we can’t know truth, why think there’s any truth to know? Or as enemies: Skeptics stress the distance between appearance and reality Relativists tend to bring them closer

Identity of All Things We draw distinctions
But things aren’t distinct in the world Everything is Dao Everything is in the eye of the beholder There is no objectivity There is no knowledge

Variability Variability: Things are perceived differently by different beings at different times Undecidability: There is no neutral way to determine which perceptions are trustworthy Sceptical thesis: Therefore, knowledge is impossible

Problem of the Criterion
Undecidability: There is no neutral way to tell which perceptions ought to be trusted We need a criterion for determining this But where could we get it? Even if we could get one, we couldn’t justify it

Possibility of Dreaming
“Those who dream of the banquet, wake to lamentation and sorrow. Those who dream of lamentation and sorrow wake to join the hunt. While they dream, they do not know that they dream. Some will even interpret the very dream they are dreaming: and only when they awake do they know it was a dream.”

Possibility of Dreaming
“Once upon a time, I, Zhuangzi, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly, I awaked, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

Zhuangzi’s Recommendation
“The true sage rejects all distinctions of this and that. He takes his refuge in Dao and places himself in subjective relation with all things.” But how can he justify his recommendation? Does it follow from his thesis? Does he know it?

Philo of Alexandria (-20 - 40)
First to attempt project of reconciling Jewish scriptures with Greek philosophy Tries to construct sceptical arguments without metaphysical presuppositions in “On Drunkenness” Algrae6 alexandria egypt

Variability Variation in perception among different species, different people, even same person on different occasions How do we know which portray reality accurately? Caesarum, Alexandria

Argument from Illusion
We often misperceive things There is no way to tell when we’re misperceiving things So, on any given occasion, we might be misperceiving things Pompey monument, Alexandria

Comparison We know, not things in themselves, but things in relation to other things— including us We know things only as they relate to us We can’t distinguish what’s really in the object from what we are contributing Roman theater, Alexandria; Alexandria sunset

Zeno’s Paradoxes Arguments against possibility of motion
Runner: one must first go halfway Achilles and the Tortoise: The tortoise gets a head start; Achilles must first get to its starting point, but by then it has moved on Zeno of Elea

Sextus Empiricus (c. 200) We can’t tell what’s in the object and what we contribute Knowledge of “external underlying objects” is impossible Recommendation: suspend judgment Agora, Athens

Problem of the Criterion, 2
Is there a criterion of truth? To settle this, we need a criterion But that’s what’s at issue! Dogmatist must argue in a circle, Or face infinite regress Agora, Athens

Suspension & Ataraxia Suspension of judgment —> peace of mind (ataraxia) But the sceptic can’t know this, or even assert it It just happens Agora, Athens

Peace of Mind “The Skeptic, in fact, had the same experience which is said to have befallen the painter Apelles. Once, they say, when he was painting a horse and wished to represent in the painting the horses foam, he was so unsuccessful that he gave up the attempt and flung at the picture the sponge on which he used to wipe the paints off his brush, and the mar of the sponge produced the effect of a horse’s foam.”

Peace of Mind “So, too, the Skeptics were in hopes of gaining quietude by means of a decision regarding the disparity of the objects of sense and of thought, and being unable to effect this they suspended judgment; and they found that quietude, as if by chance, followed upon their suspense, even as a shadow follows its substance.”

Nagarjuna (c. 1000) Mahayana Buddhist, 14th Indian Zen patriarch
Founder of Madhyamika Buddhism Destroy theorizing Leave ordinary life alone: “For we do not speak without accepting, for practical purposes, the work-a-day world” Decoration, Nalanda ruins

Attack on pramanas I know something because it arises from a reliable source of knowledge But how do I know that source of knowledge is reliable? Need a pramana of pramanas, etc.— infinite regress

Nagarjuna’s Regress Argument
“And if, for you, there is a source [of knowledge] of each and every object of proof, Then tell how, in turn, for you there is proof of those sources. If by other sources [of knowledge] there would be the proof of a source-- that would be an ‘infinite regress’; in that case neither a beginning, middle, or and end is proved.”

Pramana of pramanas Sources of knowledge: perception, analogy, testimony, inference Knowledge is justified only if we know we’re using the appropriate source What could be source of knowledge for that? Nalanda ruins

Quietism If knowledge is impossible, how can we know the truth of skepticism? Isn’t skepticism unreliable or unjustified? “If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error; But I do not make a proposition, therefore I am not in error.” Nalanda ruin

Nyaya Response We don’t need a pramana for pramanas
Means of knowledge (pramanas) and objects of knowledge (prameyas) support each other Sutra 16: Just as the 'measuring instrument' (which usually has the status of a pramana) can be a prameya as well (i.e. when its own accuracy is subject to investigation).

Scales Analogy: scales How do we test the reliability of a scale?
We compare weights it gives for objects with known weights by other scales We don’t need a “scale of scales”

Nyaya Coherentism No foundation, no given
One thing may be justifier or justified, depending on circumstances Epistemic role depends on context

Luminosity Sutra 19: these (i.e. perception etc.) are apprehended in the same way as the light of a lamp. Light can be both means of seeing and the thing seen Lamps, Buddhist temple, Lhasa, Tibet

Gangesa (c. 1350) Local doubt (e.g., eyes, scale): we doubt when something anomalous happens, and resolve as in the Nyaya-sutra Global doubt: we have no reason to entertain; makes no sense to say everything is anomaly

Pragmatic Inconsistency
“Thus it has been said (by Udayana): "That is doubted concerning which as doubted there occurs no contradiction with the doubter's action." For it is not possible at once to resort regularly to fire and the like for smoke and the like and to doubt that fire causes it (it would be meaningless behavior). This is how we should understand Udayana's saying It is the doubter's own behavior that proves the lie to the doubt, i.e., that blocks it.”

Augustine ( ) Logical and mathematical truths can be known, even if sceptical arguments succeed “I am certain that either there is only one world or there are more worlds than one. I am likewise certain that if there are more worlds than one, their number is either finite or infinite.”

Augustine: Perception
“In fact, I believe that the senses are not untrustworthy either because deranged persons suffer illusions, or because we see things wrongly when we are asleep. If the senses correctly intimate things to the vigilant and the sane, it is no affair of theirs what the mind of a sleeping or insane person may fancy for itself.”

Augustine: Appearances
“Restrict your assent to the mere fact of your being convinced that it appears thus to you. Then there is no deception, for I do not see how even an Academic [Skeptic] can refute a man who says: ‘I know that this appears white to me. I know that I am delighted by what I am hearing. I know that this smells pleasant to me. I know that this tastes sweet to me. I know that this feels cold to me.’”

Self-knowledge “I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am [Certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know.”

Thank You

Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Skepticism By Prof. Shadia Abd Elkader"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback