Skepticism

[durangodawood]

Yes, if the only criteria you apply is "Do they happen in the world" then literally everything will be the same. It is, however, beyond me why anyone would allow only for the broadest fathomable criteria which literally includes everything and leaves no space for any distincition whatsoever.

I usually resist dissolving distinctions for the sake of argument. But in this case ("category error") its valid, because the statement:

"Be skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time."

...is obviously reasonable.... whether or not its good advice.

 

[Received]

People who are skeptical of skepticism are those who believe anything anyone tells them without question or investigation (gullible). There are plenty of people like that, but they are not skeptics.

Ken

People who are skeptical of skepticism display their skepticism to the bitter end. Quite the opposite of being gullible, they can't even believe anything.

 

[durangodawood]

I usually resist dissolving distinctions for the sake of argument. But in this case ("category error") its valid, because the statement:

"Be skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time."

...is obviously reasonable.... whether or not its good advice.

Even more to the point, its do-able, which blows away the idea that there's a category error involved.
.

 

[quatona]

I usually resist dissolving distinctions for the sake of argument. But in this case ("category error") its valid, because the statement:

"Be skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time."

...is obviously reasonable.... whether or not its good advice.

Indeed it is a reasonable advice.
Except that "Skepticism leads to the best understanding of all times" isn´t the tenet of skepticism, in the first place (thus doesn´t describe "being skeptical of skepticism" but something else.
And except that you haven´t dissected the distinction between statements and meta-statements.

On another note, if you insist on playing this stupid game , the next necessary step would be to be skeptical of the truth claim that being skeptical of being skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time. Asf. Have fun going down that redundant and pointless infinite regress. However, if your logic leads you to postulate such stuff as "reasonable", you really need to check it.

 

[quatona]

Apparently you guys need some tool for the best understanding of "skepticism", in the first place.

 

[Ken-1122]

People who are skeptical of skepticism display their skepticism to the bitter end. Quite the opposite of being gullible, they can't even believe anything.

You aren't making sense. If you are skeptical of skeptism, you wouldn't be skeptical of anything except skeptism. If you were skeptical of other things like unsubstantiated claims etc, you would be engaging in skeptism the very thing you are critical of. Thus you are gullible
Ken

 

[durangodawood]

Indeed it is a reasonable advice.
Except that "Skepticism leads to the best understanding of all times" isn´t the tenet of skepticism, in the first place (thus doesn´t describe "being skeptical of skepticism" but something else.

I think that IS what most people would mean when they "be skeptical of skepticism". Essentially: question the usefulness of skepticism for getting to truth.

On another note, if you insist on playing this stupid game , the next necessary step would be to be skeptical of the truth claim that being skeptical of being skeptical of the truth claim that skepticism leads to the best understanding of things all the time. Asf. Have fun going down that redundant and pointless infinite regress. However, if your logic leads you to postulate such stuff as "reasonable", you really need to check it.

But taking it a level deeper just gets stupid, for anyone actually applying this to their own life. Keeping at the initial level could be quite a good exercise, I think.

 

[durangodawood]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

No, really.

Cant do that because philosophy police will bust you for a "category error".

(Of course there are ways in which its a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I highlighted one.)

 

[bhsmte]

You aren't making sense. If you are skeptical of skeptism, you wouldn't be skeptical of anything except skeptism. If you were skeptical of other things like unsubstantiated claims etc, you would be engaging in skeptism the very thing you are critical of. Thus you are gullible
Ken

I'm with ya!

The OP appears to me, to have a tendency to make things more complicated then they need to be.

 

[Received]

I don't get the category error. It's an appeal to a fallacy without justification as to how the OP fits it. I don't get it.

 

[Received]

You aren't making sense. If you are skeptical of skeptism, you wouldn't be skeptical of anything except skeptism. If you were skeptical of other things like unsubstantiated claims etc, you would be engaging in skeptism the very thing you are critical of. Thus you are gullible
Ken

If I'm not making sense, you sure are communicating with a person who isn't making sense in such a way where the person is making enough sense to be capable of communicating with.

And your second sentence is incorrect. If you're skeptical of skepticism, you're skeptical of -- skepticism. You're basically down for the idea of being skeptical for all sorts of things -- especially things you don't like -- but when it comes to actually applying skepticism honestly to everything, you're like, "uhhh."

 

[Received]

Anyways.

Another way of putting a curiosity behind the OP is to ask when skepticism has reached its limit. Skepticism means being skeptical -- period. Just like rationalism means espousing reason or holding reason as the standard for determining truth, so skepticism is a method for determining how go about getting truth -- by doubting stuff until there's a good enough reason to believe it.

But the moment we say, "doubt everything until there's a good enough reason," we have by definition included the very thing that commands us to doubt -- skepticism itself. But the moment we doubt skepticism, skepticism negates itself, given that doubting the command to doubt means no doubting at all.

You can take this as a specific critique of skepticism, or more interestingly as a critique of systems in general -- they negate themselves when they are honest and include themselves in their own crosshairs. But what's the next step if skepticism (as an example system) can't validate itself? If we can't unveil skepticism as a preferred method by being skeptical, then this means that skepticism is "given" by some other means. By what authority is skepticism given?

Either the authority of someone else, just because (appeal to authority, fallacy), by some type of practical or pure reasoning (yet to be revealed), or by an appeal to axioms or intuition -- skepticism because it just feels right, man.

A way out of this has been to appeal to a category error, which I understand as saying you can't apply skepticism to itself. But if it's a category error to say you can't attempt to validate skepticism according to its own criteria, then this means that skepticism is by definition "given" by some other means. See above.

So now you're like, "okay, Received, just because you're skeptical doesn't mean that you have to be skeptical of everything." But here's the ultimate question: where do we draw the line between what should be given our skepticism and what shouldn't?

The whole thing seems like a methodological excuse for "I don't like this." When I experience something that's against my taste or I'm repulsed by ideologically, then it's all about skepticism! Almost. As a general approach, I think skepticism makes a lot of sense. Skepticism means taking our time with a conclusion out of caution that it could be wrong if we accepted it too easily, or out of concern of the goodness or badness of the thing we accept (whether or not it's reasonable). But this is more of a *feeling* than a method.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you're skeptical of skepticism, you're skeptical of -- skepticism. You're basically down for the idea of being skeptical for all sorts of things --

No you are not! If you are skeptical of other things, you are being a skeptic; engaging in the very thing you are critical of.

Ken

 

[Received]

So you can be skeptical of other things, but when it comes to the very idea of being skeptical of skepticism, "you shall not pass!"

 

[durangodawood]

So you can be skeptical of other things, but when it comes to the very idea of being skeptical of skepticism, "you shall not pass!"

In the world of utterly discrete units of meaning, like symbolic logic... I can see the problem quatona brings up.

But in real life, of course you can make sensible use of the idea "being skeptical about skepticism"!

 

[Ken-1122]

Anyways.

Another way of putting a curiosity behind the OP is to ask when skepticism has reached its limit.

Skeptism has reached it's limit when the skeptic becomes convinced of the claim and he no longer is a skeptic, but becomes a believer of the claim

Skepticism means being skeptical -- period. Just like rationalism means espousing reason or holding reason as the standard for determining truth, so skepticism is a method for determining how go about getting truth -- by doubting stuff until there's a good enough reason to believe it.

No! Skeptism is not about determining the truth, it is about being critical of those who claim to know the truth. The moment the skeptic makes a truth claim, or believes a truth claim is the moment he is no longer a skeptic

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

So you can be skeptical of other things, but when it comes to the very idea of being skeptical of skepticism, "you shall not pass!"

You appear to have a flawed definition of skeptism. It is impossible to be skeptical of skepticism because skepticism is not about making truth claims, it is about being critical of truth claims.

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

You appear to have a flawed definition of skeptism. It is impossible to be skeptical of skepticism because skepticism is not about making truth claims, it is about being critical of truth claims.

Ken

O really?

What if I say: here's 10 examples of times when you should just take a claim on faith, and not really question it. That IS being skeptical of skepticism, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong in each case.

 

[bhsmte]

If I'm not making sense, you sure are communicating with a person who isn't making sense in such a way where the person is making enough sense to be capable of communicating with.

And your second sentence is incorrect. If you're skeptical of skepticism, you're skeptical of -- skepticism. You're basically down for the idea of being skeptical for all sorts of things -- especially things you don't like -- but when it comes to actually applying skepticism honestly to everything, you're like, "uhhh."

Maybe it's just me, but I struggle to make logic or sense of many of your posts. To me, you appear to be trying too hard to be intellectual and in turn make things more difficult then what they need to be.

 

[Received]

Trying too hard to be intellectual.

What evidence do you have for this?