Skepticism

[Gadarene]

Please don't condescend, G. I have high respect for you, please return it. And this was an idea I created between clients at work -- nothing too serious, but I still think there's something there. If you think there are any deeper philosophical (or theological) assumptions underlying these easy threads lately, please state them as a response.

Earlier threads of yours simply strike me as more original than this.

These "but that's scientism, no really" & "aaaah but are you REALLY skeptical about skepticism" ones are up there with "who made god?"

They're really just not up to your prior standard.

So you're saying that because something works pragmatically that we have to just accept it just as a method in ascertaining truth just because it works pragmatically?

I'm saying that everyone will end up having to make the same pragmatic assumptions to function in this world.

I surmised this when thinking about Christian presuppositionalism. You cannot presuppose Biblical claims as properly basic beliefs, as an example, because you first find out about the Bible and its claims through your own senses. Your perception is fundamental. That is something that cannot be circumvented by sheer fiat.

Now, unless we all want all philosophical discussions to be limited to what we can substantiate (so I hope you like a lot of discussions about solipsism with what may be other minds, or are they just very good simulations of them? NO-ONE KNOWS LOL), we're all going to start making the same sorts of assumptions to proceed from there. It's not even about asserting truth or not, just that there is really nothing else to say beyond the incredibly banal if you do not acknowledge these assumptions and move on to more interesting things.

Hey, it's anecdotal (I don't know of any quantitative, randomized studies that reveal a specific number of skeptics who have applied their method to their method), but I'm yet to meet one. Not even Descartes, to my mind, and we all know how right this guy was.

Well, you do now.

 

[quatona]

It's something like this:

Skepticism means suspending judgment until a certain standard of proof is fulfilled. This standard of proof is much higher than allowing something to be accepted just because it works. That is, skepticism doesn't work pragmatically, but rather its standard applies to the *truthfulness* of something. When we're skeptical, we're looking at the content of premises (veracity), not their function or utility (pragmatism).

Further, skepticism is a philosophy, and being a philosophy it's general, so it applies to everything, and that's the beauty of a philosophy or system of thought. But if skepticism is skeptical of all things, it would be skeptical of the implicit claim that "you should suspend judgment until a certain standard of proof is fulfilled."

The thing is, it isn't skeptical of this. It can't fulfill this demand. And a universe where a standard can't validate itself (whether science, rationalism, empiricism, etc.), means (and this is important) that the standard is accepted for reasons other than truthfulness or veracity. My guess is that these standards are accepted because 1) they work, or 2) because they "feel right" (i.e., are axiomatic or instinctive). Or both.

No, the standards of a system needn´t be applied to the system itself. That´s a category error (e.g. mathematical laws needn´t and can´t be applied to mathematics as a system).

You can replace "skepticism" by any other standard or philosophical approach, and you will run into the same problem.

The thing is: When you are out to commit this category error, you will be able to
- criticize the approach when the standard is applied to itself (for just affirming the premise - as you did in the "depedestaling science" thread), and
- criticize the approach when the standard is not applied to itself (for being inconsistent, as you do here).

Also, I´d love to see your answer to the request in my previous post.

 

[Received]

Earlier threads of yours simply strike me as more original than this.

These "but that's scientism, no really" & "aaaah but are you REALLY skeptical about skepticism" ones are up there with "who made god?"

Watch your tone, girlfriend.

(That's a joke.)

They're really just not up to your prior standard.

Who the heck is taking account of a prior standard, and how does creating quick threads literally while at work and often between clients imply anything other than just this? Also, I've been dealing with overtreated hypothyroidism for the last few months. It's a pain. Maybe that's another reason, given that the thyroid influences memory and cognition.

I'm saying that everyone will end up having to make the same pragmatic assumptions to function in this world.

Good, and presumably because of your lucidity in grasping this point, the OP wasn't directed toward you. IOW, the incredulity your first paragraph I quoted in this response indicates is likely that you get this point clearly. But does that mean there aren't plenty of folks who don't get this idea, or at least that it's too much to make such a simple question as in the OP?

I surmised this when thinking about Christian presuppositionalism. You cannot presuppose Biblical claims as properly basic beliefs, as an example, because you first find out about the Bible and its claims through your own senses. Your perception is fundamental. That is something that cannot be circumvented by sheer fiat.

I think it goes a bit deeper than perception, IMO, but fundamentally I'm right on with this response.

Now, unless we all want all philosophical discussions to be limited to what we can substantiate (so I hope you like a lot of discussions about solipsism with what may be other minds, or are they just very good simulations of them? NO-ONE KNOWS LOL), we're all going to start making the same sorts of assumptions to proceed from there. It's not even about asserting truth or not, just that there is really nothing else to say beyond the incredibly banal if you do not acknowledge these assumptions and move on to more interesting things.

Oh no you di'nt.

Seriously, I don't think it's trivial at all regarding the points you've stated in this response or related in general to the subject of the OP. The idea that systems are limited by their own criteria is a fascinating and deep idea, nothing at all worthy of flippant lols or dismissive omgs. There are plenty, plenty of people who think this, and I know this because I'm a person who has done it myself, still catch myself doing this, and see it over and over again in the behavior and implicit statements of people making arguments in online and real-life situations. The corollary that because systems are limited by their own criteria, they are therefore in a sense demanding another criteria (what works, experience, intuition, instinctive beliefs, etc.), is an even deeper and more fascinating idea to me. You might say what I'm trying to do in having a system-gazing-at-its-own-navel sort of OP like this one or previous ones is to try to understand the reasoning of people who believe otherwise -- who believe that not all systems are limited by their own criteria.

I'm sorry you don't share this fascination, and I'm not sorry you're insightful enough to not even see how this could be a problem with your own life or the lives of others. I mean that respectfully.

(roflcopter.)

 

[Gadarene]

Who the heck is taking account of a prior standard

Well, obviously I am....

and how does creating quick threads literally while at work and often between clients imply anything other than just this? Also, I've been dealing with overtreated hypothyroidism for the last few months. It's a pain. Maybe that's another reason, given that the thyroid influences memory and cognition.

I've been going by their content, not by the circumstances in which they were created, which I wouldn't exactly be privy to.

Good, and presumably because of your lucidity in grasping this point, the OP wasn't directed toward you. IOW, the incredulity your first paragraph I quoted in this response indicates is likely that you get this point clearly. But does that mean there aren't plenty of folks who don't get this idea, or at least that it's too much to make such a simple question as in the OP?

On this board, among the skeptic regulars? I don't think it's a big problem.

I think it goes a bit deeper than perception, IMO, but fundamentally I'm right on with this response.

We can call it "dummy signal being fed to your brain in a vat" if you prefer.

Seriously, I don't think it's trivial at all regarding the points you've stated in this response or related in general to the subject of the OP. The idea that systems are limited by their own criteria is a fascinating and deep idea, nothing at all worthy of flippant lols or dismissive omgs.

In general, perhaps. But you didn't make a thread about the general concept, you made it about one specific system.

There are plenty, plenty of people who think this, and I know this because I'm a person who has done it myself, still catch myself doing this, and see it over and over again in the behavior and implicit statements of people making arguments in online and real-life situations. The corollary that because systems are limited by their own criteria, they are therefore in a sense demanding another criteria (what works, experience, intuition, instinctive beliefs, etc.), is an even deeper and more fascinating idea to me.

Are they? I don't buy this "therefore demanding". This strikes me as predicated on another assumption - that things must be explicable.

You might say what I'm trying to do in having a system-gazing-at-its-own-navel sort of OP like this one or previous ones is to try to understand the reasoning of people who believe otherwise -- who believe that not all systems are limited by their own criteria.

That's not really how you introduced this topic though.

Again, I doubt a bunch of theologians would really credit seriously someone saying they wanted to use a "Who made God" question to "kickstart" a serious discussion about cosmological arguments for God.

You don't start advanced discussions off by posting what is basically little more than a PRATT, with no qualifiers.

I'm sorry you don't share this fascination, and I'm not sorry you're insightful enough to not even see how this could be a problem with your own life or the lives of others. I mean that respectfully.

How could it be?

As you already agreed, I have examined this and we appear to be in agreement on the conclusions.

If I'm aware of the pitfalls, I'm far less likely to run afoul of them, and that habit of being aware of the limits of whatever systems I care to use will stand me in good stead.

As for fascination - playing this game to its conclusion reduces every discussion to, "well actually I have no clue what is true beyond cogito ergo sum", which is incredibly tedious. A discussion where every answer is the same and tells you nothing is tedious, and pretty much functionless. It's "goddidit" from YECism all over again.

 

[KCfromNC]

As I said in your other thread, how do you lower the bar enough to allow for things like personal deities to jump over, without also leaving the planet covered in giant immaterial marshmallows? I'd hate to have to drive through those on the freeway.

Seroquel works pretty well for that.

Strange that no one is willing to actually address Davian's question. It's a perfectly reasonable one, and yet it's been ignored several different times by people trying to call rationality, skepticism and scientific inquiry into question. Wonder why that is...

 

[KCfromNC]

But if skepticism is skeptical of all things, it would be skeptical of the implicit claim that "you should suspend judgment until a certain standard of proof is fulfilled."

Yep, and since skepticism has been shown to separate good ideas from bad ones, that standard has been fulfilled.

Of course, that's just me being pragmatic and falling for the trick of using things which work. I guess there are alternatives - but I'll let someone else explain why it would be a good idea to reject things which work.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As for scientific skepticism not itself a subject of inquiry, why not? That would mean we accept a standard of truth (or fact) that itself must by definition be based in something beyond truth or fact. Which means pragmatism, what works, therefore what's axiomatic or feels right, or just what works period.

Scientific skepticism is neither philosophical skepticism nor methodological skepticism. It isn't some all-embracing standard of truth. It is simply about scientific method being appropriate to answering questions about what exists in the natural universe. There's no reason to apply it to philosophical questions, such as those in epistemology, including of course its own validity. That is outside of its proper domain.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Well, obviously I am....

Right.

I've been going by their content, not by the circumstances in which they were created, which I wouldn't exactly be privy to.

Now you do.

On this board, among the skeptic regulars? I don't think it's a big problem.

Well, I don't really think it's a problem at all. I'm coming at this a little more psychologically. It is what it is. And I can't help but disagree with you, while we're both lacking in any type of hard evidence to support either of our conclusions.

We can call it "dummy signal being fed to your brain in a vat" if you prefer.

Not at all. Not at all. More like systems negating themselves by being pressed beyond their limits. Or the criteria of systems requiring criteria beyond themselves, which opens up other problems. Not as cool sounding as your claim, but still.

In general, perhaps. But you didn't make a thread about the general concept, you made it about one specific system.

Did I? Just because I made it about a specific system doesn't mean I'm *not* trying to question for myself (!) whether a bigger problem (the general concept) exists. And more importantly what this bigger problem looks like, and what people who hold to this problem (or not) act like.

Are they? I don't buy this "therefore demanding". This strikes me as predicated on another assumption - that things must be explicable.

What do you mean here by "explicable"? And if systems don't go beyond themselves to other criteria, then they're left with themselves. Which means by definition, you're either looking at an appeal to authority (just accepting a system because someone said so), irrationality (in the sense you're accepting something for no "good reason"), pragmatism, or an appeal to intuition.

That's not really how you introduced this topic though.

I don't see how this follows. I opened up a discussion for conversation. I think stories are better if you allow the audience to respond, rather than spilling the beans at the beginning and leaving nothing for discussion. Yes, I'm interested in what other people think; yes, I had another motive than what *ostensibly* was the case with the OP; yes, I had time constraints; yes, it was a quick thought.

I appreciate you, G, but I feel like you're grading my dissertation sometimes.

Again, I doubt a bunch of theologians would really credit seriously someone saying they wanted to use a "Who made God" question to "kickstart" a serious discussion about cosmological arguments for God.

You don't start advanced discussions off by posting what is basically little more than a PRATT, with no qualifiers.

I'm not following.

As you already agreed, I have examined this and we appear to be in agreement on the conclusions.

If I'm aware of the pitfalls, I'm far less likely to run afoul of them, and that habit of being aware of the limits of whatever systems I care to use will stand me in good stead.

As for fascination - playing this game to its conclusion reduces every discussion to, "well actually I have no clue what is true beyond cogito ergo sum", which is incredibly tedious. A discussion where every answer is the same and tells you nothing is tedious, and pretty much functionless. It's "goddidit" from YECism all over again.

I don't follow the last sentence. And the "cogito" has its own problems.

I guess you could say that as of now I'm thinking that because systems of thought are limited, we're left concluding that, ultimately, intuition is the most needed, most fundamental "thing" underlying our systems of thought. Again, Bertrand Russell said this before by calling certain axiomatic beliefs (the existence of the world, other people, etc.) "instinctive beliefs". The OP is also me trying to question how someone could justify a particular system and also resolve a general problem that underlies it relating to systems. This doesn't at all mean a particular concept of God wins, including ridiculous ones, given that people who hold ridiculous things also have similar agreed-upon concepts as people who don't, which makes argument possible (although fanaticism is always insatiable), and therefore not all hope is lost. Please let me know if I can unwrap this possibly cryptic idea.

I really don't think that last paragraph is as discussion-worthy as a simple question.

 

[Received]

Ten years later...

No, the standards of a system needn´t be applied to the system itself. That´s a category error (e.g. mathematical laws needn´t and can´t be applied to mathematics as a system).

If the standards of the system don't apply to the system itself, then *by definition* this means something else established the validity of this system. So if we're speaking about rationalism, we can't say that reason is the way to go in general without appealing to something beyond reason; the same with anything else (pragmatism, etc.).

That's a pretty big problem, conceptually speaking.

Second, I don't see how the category error really applies here. IMV, the category error means you're putting something in a category that shouldn't be in a category, which is what you're saying I'm doing with systems when applying to themselves. But you haven't stated why a system's standards applying to itself is a category error.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Second, I don't see how the category error really applies here. IMV, the category error means you're putting something in a category that shouldn't be in a category

The implicit axiom in Euclidean Geometry that "everything is made of points" is not itself made of points.

It's a mistake to treat an axiom of geometry as a geometric object.

The failure of the axiom to obey itself does not undercut Euclidean geometry.

We find Euclidean geometry useful because of its fruits.

Similarly, Noneuclidean geometry, with different axioms, also has its uses.

If you like, skepticism is an axiom about how to deal with truth-claims. It is not itself a truth-claim. It also yields good fruit.

 

[Received]

All this is most excellent. But what to make of who or what determines skepticism or any other "standard" to be applied when it is? The standard needs a standard...needs a standard...needs a standard. Or, alternatively, there is a non-standard starting point. Which is made of what, though?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Or, alternatively, there is a non-standard starting point. Which is made of what, though?

Axioms are starting points. They are assumed without proof.

 

[Received]

Axioms are starting points. They are assumed without proof.

Thank you.

Everyone else, listen up.

 

[quatona]

Ten years later...



If the standards of the system don't apply to the system itself, then *by definition* this means something else established the validity of this system.

Exactly.

So if we're speaking about rationalism, we can't say that reason is the way to go in general without appealing to something beyond reason;

Yes, exactly. (Note, though, that I didn´t say "mustn´t apply to the system", but "need not apply to the system.)

the same with anything else (pragmatism, etc.).

As far as I can see pragmatism can appeal to pragmatism as its basis quite fine. It doesn´t deal in the currency "truth/knowledge", after all. It isn´t actually even an epistemological approach.

That's a pretty big problem, conceptually speaking.

Why do you think this is a problem? E.G. the validity of the system "mathematics" can not be proven by mathematical calculations. And music theory isn´t sung. I´m not really seeing why this would be a reason to complain.

I have already tried to explain in the other thread (you asked me to tell you more, but I do not really know how explain it better) that this "conceptual problem" exists either way: If you´d use the standards used within the system to establish the system itself as valid you´d earn yourself the reproach of circular reasoning.

I have seen you instrumentalizing both criticisms alternatively. (Well, at least with the approaches you would like to poke holes in selectively. What I, for a change, would love to see is you presenting an approach that escapes this "conceptual" problem you are seeing.)

Second, I don't see how the category error really applies here. IMV, the category error means you're putting something in a category that shouldn't be in a category, which is what you're saying I'm doing with systems when applying to themselves. But you haven't stated why a system's standards applying to itself is a category error.

Because in order to get to workable a category may not contain itself, or else you create paradoxes and get in all other sort of logical troubles (or, even worse, end up with the idea that everybody else is in trouble ).

 

[quatona]

Thank you.

Everyone else, listen up.

Now let´s look at why they are accepted without proof.

 

[Received]

That "everyone else listen up" bit was a joke, btw.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now let´s look at why they are accepted without proof.

Precisely. Axioms are not accepted arbitrarily. While they are accepted without proof, that doesn't mean that there is nothing in life experience to justify selecting one axiom and rejecting another. So, this isn't just a game of "anything goes".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

In a nutshell, Received:
Skepticism is an attitude towards truth-/knowledge claims about the world.
Skepticism itself is not a truth-/knowledge claim about the world.
Thus, skepticism can impssibly apply to itself (because it isn´t in the category of proposals that it addresses).

(Basically the same category error as with the proposition we see here so often: that "there are no moral absolutes" is a self-refuting statement in that it is a an absolute statement itself. Indeed it is an absolute statement, albeit not a moral one - hence itself not in the category it addresses).

It seems to me that category errors like these are those fallacies that all too often go unnoticed (and I think the reason is that they can easily be hidden - even to the person committing them - by unprecise use of terms). I have caught myself committing such an error more than once myself.

 

[Received]

As far as I can see pragmatism can appeal to pragmatism as its basis quite fine. It doesn´t deal in the currency "truth/knowledge", after all. It isn´t actually even an epistemological approach.

Well, I think pragmatists do dig truth, just they define it more along the lines of what works rather than classical understandings. But the standard of "what works" is no different, in my view, than "what is true," only that "what works" is still ascertained as a truthful statement -- IOW, saying "X works" is itself a statement that's either true or not, so we're back at truth/knowledge again.

Why do you think this is a problem? E.G. the validity of the system "mathematics" can not be proven by mathematical calculations. And music theory isn´t sung. I´m not really seeing why this would be a reason to complain.

Note my "conceptually speaking" tag at the end; i.e., this is a problem for people who like to weigh things down conceptually, because eventually (if each system rests on something outside itself) you get down to axioms, which are intuitively based sorts of things. Appealing to axioms allows for the freedom to say, "nope, I don't see things that way" (even if the person really does), and doesn't have the firm hat-hanging stuff that can ease anxieties like our systems of thought do. But I don't think this is a problem; it's only a problem for people who like to hang their hats with concepts.

Because in order to get to workable a category may not contain itself, or else you create paradoxes and get in all other sort of logical troubles (or, even worse, end up with the idea that everybody else is in trouble ).

Right, but I don't think that makes up a category error, as I understand it. This is a quibbling point.

 

[durangodawood]

In a nutshell, Received:
Skepticism is an attitude towards truth-/knowledge claims about the world.
Skepticism itself is not a truth-/knowledge claim about the world.
Thus, skepticism can impssibly apply to itself (because it isn´t in the category of proposals that it addresses).

But when people say: be skeptical of skepticism, thats just shorthand for: "Be skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time." (Or similar).

Category problem solved.