Why be a skeptic

[Everybodyknows]

Independent verifiable evidence, also gives us the ability to determine if our senses are in touch with reality.

How do I know the independent verifiable evidence isn't part of my internally generated matrix world?

 

[bhsmte]

How do I know the independent verifiable evidence isn't part of my internally generated matrix world?

Because it can be independently verified, outside of our own mind.

You can have an eye witness in a trial, that claims they are certain the defendent committed the crime. Then, the defense produces a video tape of the crime, to show that persons personal perception, was wrong.

 

[Michael]

Independent verifiable evidence, also gives us the ability to determine if our senses are in touch with reality.

Even the concept of 'verifiable evidence' becomes highly subjective in some branches of science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Our senses give us information about reality, but our picture of reality is constructed in our minds.

While some reality is fixed for all time our personal reality is quite flexible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does that really work, though?

That's your decision; in your position, I'd suspend judgement, pending.

So is skepticism a matter of withholding judgment or a matter of recognizing epistemological difficulties and not pretending they don't exist?

I'm inclined to think that it should be less about denial or rejection and more about suspension of judgement, pending.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Basically, W. K. Clifford was a Mathematician and Philosopher who wrote the essay, The Ethics of Belief, and is known for the little quip therein where he says: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

That it's wrong to believe on insufficient grounds doesn't necessarily mean the belief itself is wrong; although beliefs about states of affairs in the world are necessarily uncertain...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do however find that's it difficult to remain completely 'neutral' towards certain types of ideas/beliefs. One either finds ideas to be "believable" or not, but it's difficult to truly straddle the fence. It's hard not to have a few personal biases creep in at some point along the way.

I find that the "degree" of my skepticism also tends to change over time. For instance, nowadays I'm more of "strong skeptic" towards young earth creationism, rather than a weak skeptic. I started out as a "weak skeptic" towards current cosmology/solar theory, but over the last ten years it's changed into a stronger, more active type of skepticism, particularly as I have studied other cosmology theories and other solar theories. There seems to be some amount of "shading" in there somewhere toward various beliefs.

That's why it's a suspension of judgement pending [sufficient information to make a judgement]. A Bayesian approach to updating the degree of credence you attribute to an idea seems reasonable.

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" - David Hume.

But don't take my word (or Hume's) for it, it would be wise to be skeptical pending evidence, and proportion your belief to that evidence...

 

[Silmarien]

That's your decision; in your position, I'd suspend judgement, pending.

On... everything? How does one suspend judgment, pending, on the reality of the external world? Or on whether we have merely deluded ourselves into thinking that we're rational and we actually know nothing about anything?

Scientific "knowledge" is a culturally dependent product of Western exceptionalism until evidence (of which there can be none, because judgment has been suspended on both rationalism and empiricism) shows otherwise. Long live epistemological nihilism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

On... everything?

Yes - even skepticism itself

But seriously, yes and no; it's just a rule of thumb. As Dr. Johnson's stubbed toe pointed out, at some point we have to deal with the world as it appears to affect us.

How does one suspend judgment, pending, on the reality of the external world? Or on whether we have merely deluded ourselves into thinking that we're rational and we actually know nothing about anything?

If we've deluded ourselves that we're occasionally rational, then skepticism itself is a delusion; I would suggest we have sufficient information to judge that this is unlikely (albeit we don't act like rational agents in general).

As for the reality of the external world, what does that even mean? how would things be different if it wasn't real?

Scientific "knowledge" is a culturally dependent product of Western exceptionalism until evidence (of which there can be none, because judgment has been suspended on both rationalism and empiricism) shows otherwise. Long live epistemological nihilism.

I'm not suggesting an all-or-nothing absolutism, but an incremental Bayesian-style approach - updating our priors (i.e. making a judgement) iif new data arrives.

 

[Silmarien]

If we've deluded ourselves that we're occasionally rational, then skepticism itself is a delusion; I would suggest we have sufficient information to judge that this is unlikely (albeit we don't act like rational agents in general).

Well, we only have sufficient information if our cognitive abilities are as adequate as we think they are. Otherwise, we're through the looking glass playing chess with the Queen of Hearts.

As for the reality of the external world, what does that even mean? how would things be different if it wasn't real?

To paraphrase Descartes, we can't know that sensory input is not the product of a malicious demon toying with our minds.

I'm not suggesting an all-or-nothing absolutism, but an incremental Bayesian-style approach - updating our priors (i.e. making a judgement) iif new data arrives.

I take it this means that this particular approach is only applicable to broadly empirical questions? Suspending judgment on moral propositions, pending evidence of their truth or falsity, seems like a terrible idea.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, we only have sufficient information if our cognitive abilities are as adequate as we think they are. Otherwise, we're through the looking glass playing chess with the Queen of Hearts.

To paraphrase Descartes, we can't know that sensory input is not the product of a malicious demon toying with our minds.



I take it this means that this particular approach is only applicable to broadly empirical questions? Suspending judgment on moral propositions, pending evidence of their truth or falsity, seems like a terrible idea.

What do you think the odds are, that sensory input, has to do with malicious demons toying with our minds?

 

[durangodawood]

To paraphrase Descartes, we can't know that sensory input is not the product of a malicious demon toying with our minds.

I take it this means that this particular approach is only applicable to broadly empirical questions? Suspending judgment on moral propositions, pending evidence of their truth or falsity, seems like a terrible idea.

If it all might be a malicious demon, then maybe we should end this charade. Each of us. As soon as possible.

.

 

[Silmarien]

What do you think the odds are, that sensory input, has to do with malicious demons toying with our minds?

To be honest? Slightly better than the odds that naturalism is correct.

If it all might be a malicious demon, then maybe we should end this charade. Each of us. As soon as possible.

But that the dread of something after death-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.

 

[durangodawood]

But that the dread of something after death-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.

More cowbell!

 

[durangodawood]

More cowbell!

(Curiously, or maybe not, I was in a band that opened for them years ago.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That it's wrong to believe on insufficient grounds doesn't necessarily mean the belief itself is wrong; although beliefs about states of affairs in the world are necessarily uncertain...

So, you think Clifford's atheistic epistemology was a bit too exacting, then?

 

[bhsmte]

To be honest? Slightly better than the odds that naturalism is correct.

And, on what basis do you reach that conclusion?

 

[Silmarien]

And, on what basis do you reach that conclusion?

Naturalism has too many loose ends. The existence of the universe--brute fact. The existence of consciousness--brute fact or a conjuring trick by mindless matter. Rationality? Well, let's just take on faith that everything went right when unguided processes were selecting that. I'm a postmodernist, so deconstructing worldviews and the cultural factors that shape them is what I do. So I'm fairly convinced that naturalism is the result of a culture too drunk on its own technological successes to remember that its way of looking at reality is a snapsnot in intellectual history that will presumably one day get overthrown.

I lean towards idealism and believe that the nature of reality is in some sense mental. Our own consciousness appears to be mediated by physical processes, but the only thing we truly know is that somehow, the lights are on. I don't actually think there's an evil demon out there, but I think it more likely that the fundamental nature of reality, whatever it may be, is malevolent or mischievous than that it's not mental at all.

 

[quatona]

On... everything? How does one suspend judgment, pending, on the reality of the external world? Or on whether we have merely deluded ourselves into thinking that we're rational and we actually know nothing about anything?

I can easily live with the uncertainty whether there actually is an external reality oreverything is just a virtual simulation. I can withhold judgement, and yet play the game.

 

[bhsmte]

Naturalism has too many loose ends. The existence of the universe--brute fact. The existence of consciousness--brute fact or a conjuring trick by mindless matter. Rationality? Well, let's just take on faith that everything went right when unguided processes were selecting that. I'm a postmodernist, so deconstructing worldviews and the cultural factors that shape them is what I do. So I'm fairly convinced that naturalism is the result of a culture too drunk on its own technological successes to remember that its way of looking at reality is a snapsnot in intellectual history that will presumably one day get overthrown.

I lean towards idealism and believe that the nature of reality is in some sense mental. Our own consciousness appears to be mediated by physical processes, but the only thing we truly know is that somehow, the lights are on. I don't actually think there's an evil demon out there, but I think it more likely that the fundamental nature of reality, whatever it may be, is malevolent or mischievous than that it's not mental at all.

OK cool, thanks.