My Rant Against "Skepticism".

[Brady111]

Brady: The problem is, until YOU deal with the problems of skepticism, you can't assert there is a "they."
​

Gadarene: I have, and I can.

Brady: So what makes you think that your perceptions correspond to an external world?
​

Gadarene: I don't, it's an axiom.

Brady: perhaps you can provide us with a few examples [of axioms].
​

Gadarene: A statement assumed to be true, to allow subsequent conclusions to be made.

One of the main questions of philosophical skepticism is, how do we know that our perceptions correspond to an external, material world?

And your answer is, the way you know that your perceptions correspond to an external, material world is because you assume that your perceptions correspond to an external, material world.

Now assumptions are not demonstrated to be true, but are unjustified beliefs (that is why they are called assumptions and not conclusions).

Let me ask you this, do you have an actual argument against skepticism that does not rely on the fallacy of Petitio Principii, the vicious circle?

P.S.

Blind faith = unjustified belief
Assumption = unjustified belief

The law of inference: if A = B, and B = C, then A = C

 

[Gadarene]

One of the main questions of philosophical skepticism is, how do we know that our perceptions correspond to an external, material world?

And your answer is, the way you know that your perceptions correspond to an external, material world is because you assume that your perceptions correspond to an external, material world.

Incorrect.

I do not know that they do. I simply assume that they do for convenience.

Now assumptions are not demonstrated to be true, but are unjustified beliefs (that is why they are called assumptions and not conclusions).

Let me ask you this, do you have an actual argument against skepticism that does not rely on the fallacy of Petitio Principii, the vicious circle?

Against pure, can't-assume-anything skepticism? No, I don't, but I've never said it was incorrect - only somewhat irrelevant. We make assumptions to function, and most people make the same ones, so it makes little difference in practice.

 

[Brady111]

Incorrect.

I do not know that they do. I simply assume that they do for convenience.

Against pure, can't-assume-anything skepticism? No, I don't, but I've never said it was incorrect - only somewhat irrelevant. We make assumptions to function, and most people make the same ones, so it makes little difference in practice.

OK, I think you and I are done. We have clarity. Thank you for sharing you statement of faith.

 

[Gadarene]

OK, I think you and I are done. We have clarity. Thank you for sharing you statement of faith.

Thank you for your oblivious equivocation fallacy.

 

[Brady111]

Thank you for your oblivious equivocation fallacy.

I always like to be corrected; it helps me find problems in my position and helps me makes stronger argument. So, exactly where did I equivocate?

 

[Brady111]

Thank you for your oblivious equivocation fallacy.

Still waiting for you to show me where I equivocated.

 

[quatona]

Then we must examine that more carefully. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, that would be unsanitary. But I thank you for recognizing that there are different standards. For the record, my standards will usually refer back to logic. What about you?

That´s perfectly fine with me (although from the position of a epistemological skepticist even the standard of logic might be not acceptable as a reliable tool to "truth". In which case a discussion wouldn´t be possible, anyway.)

No, it is not. When someone cries at a movie or when hearing a particular song or reading a poem, it is because that resonates with a particular emotion in the person, not because of any cognitive dissonance.

So, even in a movie - where you know that the person is just an actor, that he doesn´t feel those emotions, you think that acting upon resonating with something that is just faked is not cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when two conflicting beliefs are compartmentalized, then recognized as conflicting. So, here are the two beliefs of the person in our conversation: 1) living as though the his perceptions correspond to an external, material world. 2) recognizing he has no way to know that such a world even exists.

And here´s why this doesn´t apply: There aren´t two conflicting beliefs. #1 is not a belief, it is just acting as if this world existed (and in the full awareness that the frame of reference accepted for practical purposes might be an illusion altogether).
And another point: if it is the case that my perception is completely unreliable (and the world as it appears to be there doesn´t exist, other people don´t exist, the me/I/self doesn´t exist) all my actions which I appear to perform in interaction with this world wouldn´t really exist, either. Thus, your entire premise (which leads you to your conclusion of inconsistency and cognitive dissonance) would be baseless and self-refuting.

You know what I find interesting, no one here has even attempted to actually answer Hume. Don't you find that interesting?

No, not really that interesting. You paraphrased him: "Hume gave arguments that we cannot know cause and effect is true and we cannot know that our perceptions correspond to an external, material world."
I do not necessarily disagree with Hume on that. So what about it requires me to answer it?

Instead people have tried to put a smiley face on nihilism.

Sorry, I´m not a native English speaker, and I am not familiar with this phrase. Thus, if you think I am one of those "people" who "put a smiley face on nihilism" I would kindly ask you to explain what that means.

 

[Gadarene]

Still waiting for you to show me where I equivocated.

Assuming something in order to function is not the same as believing or knowing that the assumption is true.

With every response you've made, you've tried to shoehorn in "blind faith" or some variant thereof, even when it doesn't correspond at all to what it is I've actually said.

Having enlightened you on your mistake, I see no reason to continue discussion with someone who thinks such twisting of my words is necessary.

 

[Brady111]

Assuming something in order to function is not the same as believing or knowing that the assumption is true.

Agreed, if you knew it, you would have to assume it; but, as Descartes points out, " the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice." In other words, since your foundation is an assumption, an unjustified belief, everything built on it is also a mere unjustified belief.

With every response you've made, you've tried to shoehorn in "blind faith" or some variant thereof, even when it doesn't correspond at all to what it is I've actually said.

Having enlightened you on your mistake, I see no reason to continue discussion with someone who thinks such twisting of my words is necessary.

I have simply pointed out that when you assume something you are holding to an unjustified belief and when you blindly believe something you are holding to an unjustified belief. So, a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

No equivocation here; I am simply pointing out an attempt on your part to use an euphemism.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I have simply pointed out that when you assume something you are holding to an unjustified belief

If an assumption proves itself useful isn't that in and of itself a justification even if you lack the power to conclusively prove that it's true?

 

[Gadarene]

Agreed, if you knew it, you would have to assume it; but, as Descartes points out, " the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice." In other words, since your foundation is an assumption, an unjustified belief, everything built on it is also a mere unjustified belief.

As it is for everyone else who thinks - so once again, it is utterly irrelevant in practice.

Edit: yeesh, how did I miss that howler at the start? If you knew something, you don't need to assume it - you know it.

I have simply pointed out that when you assume something you are holding to an unjustified belief and when you blindly believe something you are holding to an unjustified belief. So, a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

No equivocation here; I am simply pointing out an attempt on your part to use an euphemism.

An assumption is not a belief. It is taken to be true for functionality while thinking, not as a statement of how reality necessarily is.

So again, you equivocate.

And again, I see little point in engaging with someone blatantly twisting my words.

 

[WisdomTree]

I'm a Pyrrhonic Sceptic!