Moore's Refutation of Skepticism

[public hermit]

Famously, G.E. Moore held up his hand in front of the class and declared, "Here is a hand." And, by that declaration, Moore refuted epistemic skepticism.

What was he refuting?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S doesn't know that not-sk.
• Therefore, S doesn't know that q (she has a hand). - modus tollens

What was Moore declaring?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S knows that q.
• Therefore, S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false). - modus ponens

Does that argument work? Can I just raise my hand, and wave away all the brain-in-a-vat, Cartesian-daemon possibilities?

Here is one hand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Famously, G.E. Moore held up his hand in front of the class and declared, "Here is a hand." And, by that declaration, Moore refuted epistemic skepticism.

What was he refuting?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S doesn't know that not-sk.
• Therefore, S doesn't know that q (she has a hand). - modus tollens

What was Moore declaring?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S knows that q.
• Therefore, S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false). - modus ponens

Does that argument work? Can I just raise my hand, and wave away all the brain-in-a-vat, Cartesian-daemon possibilities?

Here is one hand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I always loved that little rejoinder from G.E. Moore, particularly because---in a juvenile fashion---I adapted my own, scaled down single digit version of it for more general use.

Anyway, I think it works for what it was addressing on a Common Sense level, but that's mainly because he was only addressing the most extreme form of Skepticism.

Beyond this momentary conclusion, I'd have to pull out my papers on G.E. Moore from a few decades ago, as well as pull in some of what both Renee Descartes and Hillary Putnam suggested if we're going to go up Nihil Hill and jump into the Brain-In-A-Vat scenario.

I'd also like to see what anyone else here thinks about your epistemic inquiry regarding Moore's argument.

 

[public hermit]

Anyway, I think it works for what it was addressing on a Common Sense level, but that's mainly because he was only addressing the most extreme form of Skepticism.

That's a helpful point. He is addressing an extreme form. I also think it works on a common sense level. I guess the argument would work even if we were in a BIV world. Wouldn't I still know I had hands in the same way if I were a brain in a vat? Wouldn't it still be common sense in a BIV world? It kind of takes the bite out of skepticism, perhaps. Sure, it's a BIV world but nothing changes. I still type with my thumb, walk on two legs, recognize simple goodness (pace Moore), and so on.

 

[public hermit]

I always loved that little rejoinder from G.E. Moore, particularly because---in a juvenile fashion---I adapted my own, scaled down single digit version of it for more general use.

Ha! Yes, the abbreviated version is compelling.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Both are begging the question.

The second premise is just a disguised version of the conclusion each person wants.

I mean, they're valid in form, but obviously it depends on the extent that you agree with that second premise.

 

[public hermit]

Both are begging the question.

The second premise is just a disguised version of the conclusion each person wants.

I mean, they're valid in form, but obviously it depends on the extent that you agree with that second premise.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. That makes sense.

ETA: I think each would appeal to some other argument to support their second premise. In the case of the epistemic skeptic, it might be something like BIV or an evil-demon/genius. For Moore it's raising his hands. But, do those save them from begging the question? I don't know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a helpful point. He is addressing an extreme form. I also think it works on a common sense level. I guess the argument would work even if we were in a BIV world. Wouldn't I still know I had hands in the same way if I were a brain in a vat? Wouldn't it still be common sense in a BIV world? It kind of takes the bite out of skepticism, perhaps. Sure, it's a BIV world but nothing changes. I still type with my thumb, walk on two legs, recognize simple goodness (pace Moore), and so on.

I don't know. Perhaps, but since I've just been informed by a source "who knows" that I'm apparently not a brain-in-a-vat and that I'm not spending enough time looking for employment, I guess reality is doing what it does best to let us know it's not just a facade: it bites us in the a$$.

So..................

Have a nice day everyone!

 

[PloverWing]

I'm having trouble getting from "I believe that it is likely that I have a hand" to "I know I have a hand". I look forward to what other folks have to say in the discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

Famously, G.E. Moore held up his hand in front of the class and declared, "Here is a hand." And, by that declaration, Moore refuted epistemic skepticism.

What was he refuting?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S doesn't know that not-sk.
• Therefore, S doesn't know that q (she has a hand). - modus tollens

What was Moore declaring?

• If S knows that q (she has a hand), then S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false).
• S knows that q.
• Therefore, S knows that not-sk (skepticism is false). - modus ponens

Does that argument work? Can I just raise my hand, and wave away all the brain-in-a-vat, Cartesian-daemon possibilities?

Here is one hand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you know you have a hand in the way we typically mean it, that means you have not chosen to accept skepticism about your hand.

Thats all I get from it. Nothing about skepticism being false. Just personal position re skepticism - which you may have adopted by mere unthinking custom.

 

[durangodawood]

Moore's argument seems so blatantly poor that its got we wondering: what might I be missing. I mean, hes the philosophy pro. And I'm not.

Otoh, Ive seen the pro's make some quite bad arguments in support of positions they are personally attached to. William Lane Craig, Im looking at you....

 

[public hermit]

Moore's argument seems so blatantly poor that its got we wondering: what might I be missing. I mean, hes the philosophy pro. And I'm not.

Otoh, Ive seen the pro's make some quite bad arguments in support of positions they are personally attached to. William Lane Craig, Im looking at you....

Yeah, maybe it is a blatantly poor argument. I think he's counting on his demonstration being so obvious that accepting the contrary position wouldn't make sense ("Moorean facts").

I think this is related (but not necessarily Moore's position). The epistemic skeptic he is addressing wants to say that things could be so radically different than they appear, that we shouldn't trust the appearances, either. It's a universal skepticism. An evil demon could arrange things so that we believe falsities that just happen to work. Or, I could be a brain in a vat and not have hands (only the experience of having hands). And since I don't know these things are not the case, I shouldn't trust common sense intuitions/normal appearances like "I have hands." But it's obvious that I have hands. Even if this were a creation of an evil demon or I were a brain in a vat, it wouldn't change the appearance or the common sense intuitions that we experience. So why doubt those? Even if things were radically different than they appear, nothing really changes. The reason for being skeptical kind of disappears, at least for me.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, maybe it is a blatantly poor argument. I think he's counting on his demonstration being so obvious that accepting the contrary position wouldn't make sense ("Moorean facts").

I think this is related (but not necessarily Moore's position). The epistemic skeptic he is addressing wants to say that things could be so radically different than they appear, that we shouldn't trust the appearances, either. It's a universal skepticism. An evil demon could arrange things so that we believe falsities that just happen to work. Or, I could be a brain in a vat and not have hands (only the experience of having hands). And since I don't know these things are not the case, I shouldn't trust common sense intuitions/normal appearances like "I have hands." But it's obvious that I have hands. Even if this were a creation of an evil demon or I were a brain in a vat, it wouldn't change the appearance or the common sense intuitions that we experience. So why doubt those? Even if things were radically different than they appear, nothing really changes. The reason for being skeptical kind of disappears, at least for me.

Pragmatically, for sure it makes sense to live and trust as if the "common sense" appearance*1 of things is real. But that doesn't make the proposals of radical skepticism false. It just renders them not worth serious consideration*2 in your life.

Footnote 1: There still are some going facts that do grind against common sense tho. Prior to Einstein who would have thought theres a way for a son to be actually older than the father? The ordering of events in a time sequence setting is about as common sense as it gets. Turns out it's not absolute at all.

Footnote 2: Simulation hypothesis throws a wrench into this by going beyond whats "possible" and makes a case about whats probable. Almost anything is "possible" in thats its hard to definitively disprove things proposed to occur at a level beyond human any reckoning. Simulation otoh tries to reason from facts on the ground or at least facts that could be actually knowable in some not too distant future. Still a lot of speculation there tho.

 

[public hermit]

Pragmatically, for sure it makes sense to live and trust as if the "common sense" appearance*1 of things is real. But that doesn't make the proposals of radical skepticism false. It just renders them not worth serious consideration*2 in your life

I think that's a spot on analysis. But doesn't that mean the conclusion of skepticism is false, i.e., I should not trust current appearances?

I was also thinking about things related to Footnote 1. Does the relative nature of time undercut the pragmatic approach to everyday experience? Or does quantum mechanics mean I shouldn't trust that I have hands? These things put our everyday experience in a different light, for sure, but the pragmatic center still seems to hold.

To be fair, this seems to have been Moore's whole approach to "common sense." I like it, but I'm also not real confident it works.

 

[durangodawood]

I think that's a spot on analysis. But doesn't that mean the conclusion of skepticism is false, i.e., I should not trust current appearances?

I thought radical skepticism was strong limits on what we can fully know. But as for what we should provisionally believe so we can go about life, it claims nothing. Thats my possibly wrong understanding about what this is in philosophy world.

So in the absence of proof, believe what seems most reasonable for living a decent life.

I was also thinking about things related to Footnote 1. Does the relative nature of time undercut the pragmatic approach to everyday experience? Or does quantum mechanics mean I shouldn't trust that I have hands? These things put our everyday experience in a different light, for sure, but the pragmatic center still serms to hold.

Time relativity doesnt demolish every common sense understanding of things, imo. It demolishes just one, and only in a way that doesnt even affect regular life (yet). But still, one "real common sense fact" of the world undercut is something.

To be fair, this seems to have been Moore's whole approach to "common sense." I like it, but I'm also not real confident it works.

The pragmatic center works. But it doesnt hold as absolute knowledge that rules out alternative big picture explanations for all this. I mean, youre a Christian, right? To me that implies you believe some things that defy "look at my hands" common sense.

 

[public hermit]

I thought radical skepticism was strong limits on what we can fully know. But as for what we should provisionally believe so we can go about life, it claims nothing. Thats my possibly wrong understanding about what this is in philosophy world.

No, I think that's right.

So in the absence of proof, believe what seems most reasonable for living a decent life.

Agreed.

Time relativity doesnt demolish every common sense understanding of things, imo. It demolishes just one, and only in a way that doesnt even affect regular life (yet). But still, one "real common sense fact" of the world undercut is something.

Okay, I agree with that.

The pragmatic center works. But it doesnt hold as absolute knowledge that rules out alternative big picture explanations for all this. I mean, youre a Christian, right? To me that implies you believe some things that defy "look at my hands" common sense.

I don't think so, but I'll have to think about that. Right off the bat, I think our common sense experience fits different assumptions, also. For instance, because of our epistemic limitations, I think this experience can fit both a BIV world and a creator-God world. That being said, because I do believe in a creator-God world, I feel pretty confident that our common sense experience is trustworthy for its own sake (God is good like that). However, I don't think a BIV world would make it somehow less trustworthy. It would still be the same experience, which works as well as it does.

 

[durangodawood]

...a BIV world....

Whats that?

 

[public hermit]

Whats that?

Sorry. Brain in a vat.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think so, but I'll have to think about that.

Im referring to everything from the miracles of Jesus to the idea of afterlife consequences for what you believe now.

Right off the bat, I think our common sense experience fits different assumptions, also. For instance, because of our epistemic limitations, I think this experience can fit both a BIV world and a creator-God world. That being said, because I do believe in a creator-God world, I feel pretty confident that our common sense experience is trustworthy for its own sake (God is good like that). However, I don't think a BIV world would make it somehow less trustworthy. It would still be the same experience, which works as well as it does.

BIV adds a whole other story that you lack access to: the world where the vat exists. So now we have two worlds to account for. Absent evidence for vat world, it seems contrived. Plus, I dont prefer it. But thats the best I can do. I cant declare it definitively false like Moore attempts and fails to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Moore's argument seems so blatantly poor that its got we wondering: what might I be missing. I mean, hes the philosophy pro. And I'm not.

Otoh, Ive seen the pro's make some quite bad arguments in support of positions they are personally attached to. William Lane Craig, Im looking at you....

Actually, Moore himself realized that his "hand" analogy wouldn't satisfy everyone and wouldn't provide more than a practical substantiation of a local presence in reality. Whereas Descartes reached his axiomatic position of "I think, therefore I am," Moore was simply saying that "I see my hand, therefore I know I am."

At center, the more nuanced levels of investigation into a more overall ontology of reality as well as of the epistemological consideration of Sufficiency of Evidence (which is difference and relative much of the time for each one of us) prevents Moore's hand analogy from providing anything comprehensive and universally compelling on lesser forms of Skepticism.

As an aside, we shouldn't think of Moore's hand analogy as some sort of heuristic for application about religious views; Moore was no theist and wasn't trying to prove anything in the way of theology since he didn't believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm having trouble getting from "I believe that it is likely that I have a hand" to "I know I have a hand". I look forward to what other folks have to say in the discussion.

What should count as evidence that you have a hand?