Limitis Of Knowledge Flashcards
Nature of Philosophical skepticism
It is the position that one or more of our usual methods for justification for claiming our beliefs are knowledge is inadequate, so we do not in fact have knowledge
Distinction between philososphical scepticism and normal incredulity
Normal incredulity can be solved/checked/rationalised with ordinary evidence, it challenges a single/small number od beleifs. Philosophical skepticism can never be solved/checked with ordinary evidemce and can affext many/all our beliefs. Its theoretical so doesnt necessarily change our behavior
Role of philosophical skepticism
It can be used to test the strength of our knowledge. As it undercuts our usual justification it can show us where we might be making unwanted assumptions.
Local vs global scepticism
Local scep is where we may doubt a particular domain of knowledge. Global scep is where all my knowledge is thrown into doubt. It is self defeating to believe in global scep as to commit to it you must doubt everything, including global scep
Descartes and Moore on global scepticism
Descartes says that as soon as we doubt we prove our existence as thinking things. Moore says uts a foundational belief that he has two hands, and any attempt to undermine it must have strong evidence.
Descartes’ scepticism arguments
His 1st/2nd wave of doubt is not global scepticism as they can be alleviated by using our senses to check dreams are less vivid. His third wave of doubt is global scep as the demons deception is total. All senses and a priori knowledge is brought into question.
Descartes response to scepticism
He thinks “ I think before I am” is a belief that is impossible to doubt. It is a clear and distinct idea and is an a priori intuition.
Locke’s response to scepticism
Indirect realism can lead to scep: 1) the world may differ to senses and 2)if there is any external world at all. It is not practical as our experiences provide us with information on how to live in the world, any scepticism is purely theoretical and doesnt affect how we live.
Berkley and Russels response to scepticism
In the BIV/ demon argument, we cant know if there is a difference between experience amd reality. Idealism removes that distinction, reality is what you experience and nothing more. Our knowledge of reality is secure because it is the same as our ideas. Cat example/external world is the best hypothesis, we shoukdnt drop the belief of am external world without good reason
Reliabilist response to scepticism
Suggests an issue with needing justification, as i cant prove im not a BIV. Replacing justification with reliable processes fixes this issue as i dont need an internal justification, it just needs to be formed via a reliable process.
