Skepticism

Wes Morriston has argued that given the mixture of goods and evils found in the world, the probability of God’s existence is much less than the probability of a creator who is indifferent to good and evil. One of my goals here is, first, to show how, by bringing in the concept of dispositions, Morriston’s argument can be expressed in a rigorous, step-by-step fashion, and then, second, to show how one can connect the extent to which different events are surprising (...) to conclusions concerning the probabilities of those events. My second goal is to evaluate two important objections to Morriston’s argument advanced by Timothy Perrine in his article, ‘Skeptical Theism and Morriston’s Humean Argument from Evil.’ Perrine’s first objection involves comparing how probable the evils in the world are if God exists with the probability if there is a deity who is indifferent to good and evil, and Perrine argues that given the version of skeptical theism that he and Stephen Wykstra have defended, the probability given theism is greater than the probability given an indifferent deity. Perrine’s second objection focuses instead on the probability of the mixture of goods and evils found in the world, and here he argues that there is no way of assigning a probability to that, either given the God-hypothesis or given the indifferent deity hypothesis, and therefore no way of comparing the probabilities of those two hypotheses. I then set out arguments that show that neither of Perrine’s objections is sound. (shrink)

Supposons un sceptique qui doute qu’il ait deux mains. Je montre tout d’abord que si on le compare au fou, cela coupe court à toute tentative de le comprendre. La raison en est non pas qu’il ne partage pas les mêmes croyances-charnières que nous, mais qu’il n’effectue aucun partage entre des croyances-charnières et des croyances susceptibles d’être révisées. Puis je propose un autre modèle à partir duquel le discours d’un sceptique peut apparaître comme intelligible : le modèle de la compréhension (...) interculturelle. Dans ce cadre, un sceptique n’est intelligible que s’il adhère à un système partagé de distribution entre des croyances-charnières et des croyances révisables, quand bien même il n’a pas les mêmes croyances-charnières que nous. (shrink)

Moral responsibility skepticism has traditionally been dismissed as a nonstarter, but because of the important work of Derk Pereboom, Gregg Caruso, and others, it has become increasingly influential. I lay out this doctrine, and I subject it to critical scrutiny. I argue that the metaphysical arguments about free will do not yield the result that we do not deserve (in a “basic” sense) the attitudes and actions definitive of moral responsibility. Further, I argue that skepticism leaves out crucial components of (...) our considered views about moral responsibility, making it seriously problematic. (shrink)

In A Confection of Refutation (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya), the twelfth-century philosopher and poet Śrīharṣa addresses a version of Meno’s paradox. This version of the paradox was well known in first millennium South Asia through the writings of two earlier Sanskrit philosophers, Śabarasvāmin (4th–5th century ce) and Śaṃkara (8th century ce). Both these thinkers proposed a solution to the paradox. I show how Śrīharṣa rejects this solution, and splits the old paradox into two new ones: the paradox of triviality and the paradox of (...) incoherence. I argue that these paradoxes are connected to Śrīharṣa’s broader pessimism about the possibility of successful rational inquiry into certain philosophical questions. (shrink)

Can culinary items bear heritage value? That is, can culinary items bear the kind of universal value shared by, say, a paleolithic site and the Hiroshima Peace.

Dans la section XII de l’ Enquête sur l’entendement humain David Hume s’interroge sur le sens et de l’absurdité du scepticisme. Il distingue différentes espèces de scepticisme dont nous examinons, pour chacune d’elles, l’intelligibilité. Celle-ci peut en effet être sémantique, pragmatique ou pratique. Un essai de jeunesse de Hume sur l’idéal chevaleresque, jusqu’ici peu exploité, nous y aide. Nous interprétons alors les deux formes de « scepticisme mitigé » en analysant leurs affections caractéristiques : la modestie intellectuelle et le goût (...) critique. Cela nous permet de répondre à une question débattue du commentaire : le scepticisme mitigé est-il modéré? Finalement, l’enjeu de la réflexion humienne sur le sens du scepticisme n’est pas de donner une réponse épistémologique au scepticisme mais d’en répondre, en prenant en compte l’expérience de son vertige existentiel. (shrink)

Fragments is a verse and narrative work of phenomenological and existential ontology focusing on mind-world unity and mind-world dislocation in the experience of self through time. Pivotal experiential and historical moments -- moments when normative guardrails and unreflective models of the world may be compromised -- are approached as fundamental markers of how we transact with evolving versions of ourselves and world.

I review proposed skepticisms in recent literature (or skeptical invariantisms, if we understand skepticism semantically), contrast their basic commitments and highlight some of their comparative theoretical attractions and problems. To help set the scene for the discussion, I start with Unger’s (1975) modern classic of global skepticism about knowledge (and justification). I then distinguish three extant categories of skepticism in the recent literature: two non‐traditional and one more traditional. On the non‐traditional side are fallibilist science‐based skepticism (which relaxes the stringency (...) of the standard of knowledge) and practical skepticism (which questions the intellectual character of the standard of knowledge) and on the traditional side high‐standard/infallibilist. I then briefly present and discuss representatives of each category. (shrink)

In this chapter, Robb Dunphy is concerned with the nature of G.E. Schulze's scepticism as he presents it in his 1792 work Aenesidemus, and with its relation to the metaphysical projects of Kant, Reinhold, and later German Idealists. After introducing Schulze's text, Dunphy turns to a recent interpretation offered by Jessica Berry, who claims that the extent to which Schulze endorsed a genuinely Pyrrhonian Scepticism has gone unacknowledged, both by his idealist contemporaries and by the majority of the secondary literature (...) on the period. Berry suggests that this unacknowledged Pyrrhonism in Aenesidemus provides the resources for a more radical criticism of the German Idealists' scientific, systematic metaphysical ambitions, to which they remain fundamentally vulnerable. Despite agreeing that an exploration of Schulze's debt to Pyrrhonism represents a valuable addition to our understanding of his scepticism, in the latter parts of the chapter Dunphy suggests that the Berry's attribution of a Pyrrhonian Scepticism to Schulze should to some extent be rejected, and that such a scepticism is perhaps not quite as problematic for the projects of Kant and the German Idealists as she suggests. (shrink)

Broadly speaking, this is a book about truth and the criteria thereof. Thus it is, in a sense, a book about justification and rationality. But it does not purport to be about the notion of justification or the notion of rationality. For the assumption that there is just one notion of justification, or just one notion of rationality, is, as the book explains, very misleading. Justification and rationality come in various kinds. And to that extent, at least, we should recognize (...) a variety of notions of justification and rationality. This, at any rate, is one of the morals of Chapter VI. This book, in Chapters I-V, is mainly concerned with the kind of justification and rationality characteristic of a truth-seeker, specifically a seeker of truth about the world impinging upon the senses: the so-called empirical world. Hence the book's title. But since the prominent contemporary approaches to empirical justification are many and varied, so also are the epistemological issues taken up in the following chapters. For instance, there will be questions about so-called coherence and its role, if any, in empirical justification. And there will be questions about social consensus (whatever it is) and its significance, or the lack thereof, to empirical justification. Furthermore, the perennial question of whether, and if so how, empirical knowledge has so-called founda­ tions will be given special attention. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to philosophically examine how disinformation from state officials and politicians affects the right to access to information and political participation. Next to the more straightforward implications for political self-determination, the paper examines how active dissemination of lies by figures of epistemic authority can be framed as a human rights issue and affects trust patterns between citizens, increases polarization, impedes dialogue, and obstructs access to politically relevant information by gatekeeping knowledge. Analyzing European Convention on Human (...) Rights (ECHR) case law, the paper argues that human rights law provides some argumentative basis for extending individuals’ rights as epistemic and political agents towards a “right to truth spoken by politicians”. However, challenges in balancing a possible restriction of lies and assessing the real effective harm that comes from them remain, potentially leading to a vacuum of rights protection for less visible long-term harm to individuals and public discourse. In order to have a real chance at tackling the harmful consequences of publicly told lies from a human rights perspective, it is necessary to rethink the notion of harm to encompass more complex and abstract forms of politico-epistemic damage to individuals and the public. (shrink)

This volume delves into the question of how, in an Iberian world apparently far removed from the battlegrounds of modernity and secularisation, doubt and unbelief found fertile soil, stimulated by social and religious developments. Adopting a multidisciplinary perspective, the contributors show how the crisis of identity produced by forced mass conversion touched off inner crises about the nature of Truth. By tracing the path from medieval Spain to the Spanish Inquisition, and from the great literary and artistic works of the (...) Spanish Baroque to Sephardic Marranism, this volume fills a historiographical gap in European social and intellectual history, demonstrating the importance of the Iberian world in the evolution of European scepticism. Mercedes García-Arenal is Research Professor at CSIC, Madrid, and Stefania Pastore is Associate Professor at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. They work on tolerance and dissent in Early Modern Iberia: on forced conversion, on the violent world of the Inquisition and the debates and protests that it sparked, and on the complex interplay of minorities. They have recently collaborated on After Conversion. Iberia and the Emergence of Modernity (Brill, 2016) and, as editors, Visiones imperiales y profecía. Roma, España, Nuevo Mundo (Abada, 2018). (shrink)

Scepticism about ought simpliciter is the view that there is no such thing as what one ought simpliciter to do. Instead, practical deliberation is governed by a plurality of normative standpoints, each authoritative from their own perspective but none authoritative simpliciter. This paper aims to resist such scepticism. After setting out the challenge in general terms, I argue that scepticism can be resisted by rejecting a key assumption in the sceptic’s argument. This is the assumption that standpoint-relative ought judgments bring (...) with them a commitment to act in accordance with those judgments. Instead, I propose an alternative account of our normative concepts according to which only ought simpliciter judgments commit one to acting in accordance with those judgments. In addition to answering the sceptical challenge, the proposal offers an independently motivated account of what makes a concept normatively authoritative. (shrink)

Most philosophers of religion subscribe to some variety of religious realism: they believe that religious statements aim at capturing a mind-independent reality and are true precisely if they successfully do so. Curiously, most religious realists also believe that at least some of our religious beliefs are rationally justified. In this paper, I argue that these positions are actually at odds with each other. Religious realists should rather be religious skeptics. I first argue that realism always implies the possibility of our (...) beliefs being false. Then, I develop a Copernican argument to show that we have no reason to believe that we are in an epistemically privileged position where we could be confident that our particular belief is justified while all competing beliefs are not. This seems impossible for two reasons: (a) From a probabilistic point of view (adopting a principle of mediocrity), it is highly unlikely that current humans have the maximum of epistemic capacities possible. Rather, our ability to understand reality is limited, so we should expect at least some parts of religious reality to remain unknown to us. (b) From a deep-time perspective, humanity has not pondered religious questions for long. We are probably still in the early stages of our cognitive evolution, and so we should treat our religious beliefs as provisional and open to revision. (shrink)

This volume examines modern scepticism in all main philosophical areas: epistemology, science, metaphysics, morals, and religion. It features sixteen essays that explore its importance for modern thought. The contributions present diverse, mutually enriching interpretations of key thinkers, from Montaigne to Nietzsche. The book includes a look both at the relationship between Montaigne and Pascal and at Montaigne’s criticism of religious rationalism. It turns its attention to an investigation into the links between ancient scepticism and Bacon’s Doctrine of the Idols, as (...) well as into the ancient problem of the criterion in Cartesian philosophy. Next, three essays focus on more general topics, like modern sceptical disturbances, clandestine literature and irreligion. Two essays investigate the role of scepticism in Bayle’s moral thinking and his theory of religious toleration. Hume’s sceptical philosophy is the subject of two papers by distinguished scholars. In addition, many contributors address the presence of scepticism in Kant and in the German Idealism, such as the role of Schulze's scepticism in the works of the young Hegel. The book closes with a paper on Nietzsche and scepticism, and an essay on the role of Popkin’s and Schmitt’s works on modern scepticism. This collection continues along a rich, fruitful path opened by Richard H. Popkin and pursued by many important scholars, like Gianni Paganini, John-Christian Laursen, and José Raimundo Maia Neto. It re-establishes that necessary dialogue between researchers of scepticism from all over the Americas, which began with Popkin, Oswaldo Porchat and Ezequiel de Olaso long ago. This insightful reflection on modern European scepticism will also serve as an important resource in the history of modern philosophy. (shrink)

Skeptical theism, broadly construed, is an attempt to leverage our limited cognitive powers, in some specified sense, against “evidential” and “explanatory” arguments from evil. Since there are different versions of these kinds of arguments, there are correspondingly different versions of skeptical theism. In this paper, I consider four challenges to three central versions of skeptical theism: (a) the problem of generalized skepticism, (b) the problem of moral skepticism, (c) the problem of unqualified modal skepticism, and (d) the challenge from Bayesian (...) epistemology. (shrink)

Skeptical theism, broadly construed, is an attempt to leverage our limited cognitive powers, in some specified sense, against “evidential” and “explanatory” arguments from evil. Since there are different versions of these kinds of arguments, there are correspondingly different versions of skeptical theism. In this paper, I briefly explain three versions of these arguments from evil (two from William Rowe and one from Paul Draper) and the three versions of skeptical theism tailor-made to block them (from Stephen Wykstra, Michael Bergmann, and (...) Peter van Inwagen). (shrink)

In section 1 I present a case for understanding Cicero as a radical Academic skeptic, based on evidence from the Academica. In section 2 I offer an explanation of the concept of skeptical fideism and present a way to taxonomize various versions of the view. The material in sections 1 and 2 positions us to ask, was Cicero, the Academic augur, a sincere orthopraxic skeptical fideist? In section 3 I attempt to answer that question, beginning with an examination of De (...) divinatione. Reading that work in a skeptical light, as I do, we are led to an impasse on our central question. However, in section 4 I consider two lines of argument that might enable us to determine Cicero’s own views. (shrink)

In this paper, I would like to present G.E. Moore’s view on Scepticism and certainty with reference to his papers “Defence of common sense” “Proof of an external world” and “Certainty”. In section I following Moore’s “Proof of an External World” the distinction between empirical objects like paper, human hand, shoes and socks and private objects like images in dreams, double images, after images, and toothache have been highlighted. It has been pointed out that according to Moore, no example of (...) private objects in place of “these are my two hands” could have successfully refuted scepticism; and that Moore does follow Kant’s definition of external objects in order to prove the existence of the external world. The second section emphasizes two points; i) the example of these are my two hands is not a frivolous activity and ii) Moore does recognize the point of Descartes’ dream argument at least to the extent that de does recognize that knowing that P is different from Proving that P. In section III Moore’s attribution of certainty to empirical propositions has been highlighted by responding to the remarks made by Wittgenstein and Malcolm against Moore. In Section IV following Moore’s certainty, a logical explanation of Moore’s thesis that contingent propositions can be certain has been carried out. In addition to that an explanation of how Moore has weakened the dream argument by finding it incoherent. Finally, it has been concluded that Moore’s refutation of scepticism is quite successful in so far as scepticism has no place in common sense. (shrink)

According to Aristotle if a universal proposition (for example: “All men are white”) is true, its contrary proposition (“All men are not white”) must be false; and, according to Aristotle, if a universal proposition (for example: “All men are white”) is true, its contradictory proposition (“Not all men are white”) must be false. I agree with what Aristotle wrote about universal propositions, but there are universal propositions which have no contrary proposition and have no contradictory proposition. The proposition X “All (...) the propositions that contradict this proposition are true” does not have the contrary proposition and does not have the contradictory proposition. In fact: FEX “All the propositions that contradict this proposition are not true” has a different subject: the subject of the proposition X is constituted by all the propositions that contradict the proposition X; by contrast, the subject of the proposition FEX is constituted by all the propositions that contradict the proposition FEX. And FOX “Not all the propositions that contradict this proposition are true” has a different subject: the subject of the proposition X is constituted by the propositions that contradict the proposition X; by contrast, the subject of the proposition FOX is constituted by the propositions that contradict the proposition FOX. According to Aristotle, a singular proposition (in his example: "Socrates is white") which is true must have its negative proposition ("Socrates is not white") which is false. I agree with Aristotle, but there are singular propositions which do not have the corresponding negative proposition. The proposition (or, rather, the pseudo-proposition) L “This same statement is not true” does not have the negative proposition because the proposition FNL “This same statement is true” has a different subject from the subject of the proposition L: the subject of the proposition L is the proposition L; by contrast, the subject of the proposition FNL is the proposition FNL. L and FNL cannot have the same subject. By contrast, the proposition M “This mount is entirely in Swiss territory” and the proposition NM “This mount is not entirely in Swiss territory” can have the same subject (for example, the Mount Eiger): in case the subject of the proposition M and the subject of the proposition NM is the same, M and NM are opposite propositions, NM is the negative proposition of M. By contrast, the proposition (or, rather, the pseudo-proposition) L "This same statement is not true" cannot have the corresponding negative proposition because FNL "This same statement is true" has a different subject: the subject of L is L ; by contrast, the subject of FNL is FNL. Then the paper continues by analyzing some variants of the liar’s paradox: L1 “The statement L1 is not true”; the so-called liar cycle; and the so-called Yablo’s paradox. (shrink)

This paper argues for the existence of a certain type of defeater for one’s belief that P—the presence of social incentives not to share evidence against P. Such pressure makes it relatively likely that there is unpossessed evidence that would provide defeaters for P because it makes it likely that the evidence we have is a lopsided subset. This offers, I suggest, a rational reconstruction of a core strand of argument in Mill’s On Liberty. A consequence of the argument is (...) that on morally and politically laden issues in particular, a high degree of doxastic openness might be appropriate. (shrink)

In this paper, we attempt to explain the concept and types of “Implicit Bias” by outlining its various meanings. These biases can be indirectly identified in anyone through experimental tests. These biases have different epistemological consequences, namely skepticism. Jennifer Saul has argued that we have very compelling reasons to believe that our judgments, decisions, and evaluations of propositions and arguments are influenced by the social groups that the person making that argument or statement is a member of. Thus, she points (...) out that we make mistakes in the majority of the judgments we make on a daily basis. In light of this, we may be skeptical about the need to take practical action. We argue that Saul’s view is ambiguous in several ways: 1) Her discussion of skepticism depends on adopting a certain type of meaning for implicit bias and does not necessarily include other meanings. 2) In Saul’s view, the mind does not participate in the creation of belief and acts as a neutral machine. 3) Saul’s argument is self-defeating. 4) She has not given precise and general criteria for implicit bias effectiveness. 5) Her evaluation of traditional skepticism’s ineffectiveness in society is incorrect. Finally, 6) the degree of effectiveness varies from person to person, and the extent of its strength or weakness differs from person to person. Introduction Today, there is general agreement among researchers in the fields of social psychology and experimental psychology – and consequently, philosophy – that we have beliefs that affect our actions, evaluations, judgments, relationships, etc. These beliefs have been discussed in various fields. Implicit biases reflect our beliefs about categories such as racial groups, jobs, women, nationalities, LGBTQ community members, political and moral values, etc. Implicit biases are considered unconscious. This is the most common reading of this. In this reading, one is unaware of the biases that affect judgment, evaluation, decisions, etc. By means of some tests, the most well-known being the “implicit association test: IAT,” it is possible to prove the existence of such biases. Implicit biases are also commonly interpreted as “dissonant and unendorsed.” The person denies the existence of these biases and asserts that they do not reflect his true self. The most common readings of bias itself are: 1) bias as a bad thing and something that is normatively bad, and 2) bias as a neutral thing, that is, it is explored here why a trend is considered bad or good. Bias-related doubt According to what has been expressed about implicit biases, Jennifer Saul discusses the fact that implicit biases lead to another type of skepticism. She calls this “bias-related doubt.” For her, what we know about implicit biases indicates that there are very compelling reasons to believe that we cannot properly trust our knowledge-seeking. For example, when we make a mistake about the quality of an article, we have actually made a mistake about the quality of an argument. We evaluate that argument based on components completely unrelated to its quality. Our knowledge is influenced by the author’s social group. In fact, we accept an argument that we have not really accepted, and we reject an argument that we have not really rejected. Rather, we have accepted or rejected the social groups of the argument proponents. Moreover, implicit bias affects not only our judgment when accepting or rejecting people’s testimony but also who we consider credible. Even when we evaluate the evidence or the argument itself, we are still affected. Implicit biases not only affect how we choose who to trust they also influence us when we think we are judging something that has nothing to do with people’s credibility. In addition, evidence such as “shooter bias” indicates that implicit bias actually impacts our perception. Hence, she concludes that we require practical and collective action to ward off the threat of this type of skepticism. Unlike the traditional type of skepticism, which has no effect on our social life. According to her, stereotypes based on implicit biases can be completely dismantled only if we reconfigure our social world. This can be accomplished by creating more inclusive workplaces where women, people of color, and people with disabilities are in positions of authority. In addition, it can be done by putting men in nurturing roles. Discussion The following points can be mentioned in criticizing Saul: 1- Saul considered bias a bad thing. According to this reading, the mind plays no role in cognition and functions as a neutral machine. A point of view based on empiricists like Locke and Hume, as well as logical positivists. 2- Saul’s argument is self-defeating. If what she says about our knowledge-seeking faculties is assumed to be true, then this argument includes her own point of view and actually refers back to itself. 3- This type of skepticism is different in everyone, and its examination in everyone depends on conducting precise experimental tests; therefore, we cannot determine a general criterion for all people. It is also worthwhile to consider that the way experimental tests are performed will have a direct impact on the results obtained from them. 4- The skepticism that originates from implicit bias is different for each person in terms of its type and degree of influence. Although we could say that our judgments are influenced by implicit bias, it is impossible to say how much this effect is. 5- Whether we read implicit biases depends on our theoretical position about their meaning. A different position can bring completely different results. Saul’s skepticism does not necessarily include all implicit bias readings, and it cannot be related to all of them. 6- It is not true that traditional types of skepticism have no effect on our practical lives. If we are convinced that an evil demon dominates our minds, much of our certain knowledge will disappear and the quality of our epistemic life will be reduced. Conclusion We noticed that Saulish skepticism faces serious difficulties considering different readings of implicit bias. We also examined Saul’s view about how these biases lead to skepticism. Although Saul’s view is thoughtful and needs attention, we believe that the evidence and arguments she uses to justify her claim are not sufficient. In addition, they are not compatible with other readings. As a result, even though Saul’s view should be taken seriously, there is currently no strong evidence to support the point. (shrink)

Resenha de Peter S. Fosl, Hume’s Scepticism: Pyrrhonian and Academic. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press, 2020, 378pp.

The necessity of belief -- The word belief -- The ability to believe -- Belief and law -- Belief and science -- Belief and personality -- 'The problem of evil' -- The victory of materialism -- The moral universe -- Tragedy and comedy -- The end is the beginning.

Thought experiments involving The Matrix, brains-in-vats, or Cartesian demons have traditionally thought to describe skeptical possibilities. Chalmers has denied this, claiming that the simulations involved are real enough to at least sometimes defeat the skeptic. Through an examination of the meaning of kind terms in natural language I argue that, though the Chalmers view may be otherwise attractive, it is not an antidote to skepticism.

This book is a manuscript that was virtually complete when James W. Cornman died. Most of the chapters were in final form, and all but the last had been revised by the author. The last chapter was in handwritten form, and the concluding remarks were not finished. Swain took charge of the proofreading and John L. Thomas compiled the indices with the assistance of Lehrer. It is our opinion that this manuscript, like the other books Cornman published, is one of (...) exceptional scholarly and philo sophical importance. As do all of his philosophical publications, this work reflects Cornman's great love for philosophy and his commitment to the search for truth. Every serious student and author of epistemology will benefit from and admire the thorough scholarship and rigorous argumentation they will find herein. It has been our privilege to partici pate in the preparation of the manuscript for the philosophical public. KEITH LEHRER MARSHALL SWAIN IX INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM Many philosophers try to refute skepticism, but few try to give a precise characterization of the thesis they attack. My first aim, consequently, is to characterize skepticism, or, more precisely, several species of skepticism. Then I shall choose those species I wish to consider and justify my choice. To begin, let me distinguish what I shall call "epistemological skepticism" from the thesis I shall call "ontological nihilism" and from what is believed by someone whom I shall call an "ontological skeptic". (shrink)