the limits of knowledge Flashcards
nature of philosophical scepticism
the view that
our usual justifications for claiming our beliefs amount to knowledge are
inadequate, so we do not in fact have knowledge
can target
knowledge from any source, including perception and reason
distinction between philosophical scepticism and normal incredulity
Normal incredulity - healthy doubt about whether
some claim is true or not
Philisophical scepticism - doubting how we know what we think we know
the function of philosophical scepticism within epistemology
- puts the whole idea of our usual justifications into question
- helps us to find what we
can know, if anything
The distinction between local and global scepticism
Local scepticism - to doubt a specific thing
Global scepticism - hyperbolic - brain in a vat - contemporary version of evil demon
- Not claiming we know nothing, or that everything is false - contradiction at conception
- the idea that we cannot fully justify what we claim to know
the (possible) global application of philosophical scepticism
descartes’ first wave of doubt
descartes’ second wave of doubt
locke’s response to scepticism
descartes’ third wave of doubt
descartes’ response to scepticism
God is perfect so God would not deceive us therefore we can trust our reality
berkeley’s response to scepticism
denies the distinction between appearance and reality –
because only minds and ideas exist, the content of our sense experiences
is what reality is
russell’s response to scepticism
Best explanation/hypothesis
Believing in reality is more simple than believing in scepticism
reliabilist response to scepticism
rejects scepticism’s assumption that our beliefs must be
justified to be knowledge. As long as our beliefs about physical objects
are caused by a reliable process, then we know such objects exist. We
do not even need to know that they are caused by a reliable process. So
we do not need to know that we are not brains in vats in order to have
knowledge about the world
