Atheist Debates - Skepticism and Epistemology

A response to a viewer's question about whether or not skepticism is "an epistemology" and why I list "foundherentism" as my epistemology rather than skepticism.

[chriscox]

I like being able to watch you without expletives flying and not talking to idiots. A whole new side. You could teach I think.

[laurajarrell]

Matt, wow. If I miss just a teensy bit of this, I get lost, lol. But it's good and I'm learning. Thankyou!👍🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌

[sj]

Please do a video on "infinite regress" please!
After a recent debate of yours you had said you were gonna do a video on infinite regress because that phrase came up so many times, and I've been looking forward to your video on it ever since

[jdsartre]

About halfway through... A key aspect of skepticism, I would say, is healthy appreciation and acknowledgement that humans easily believe things (and make claims and pitches) that aren't true, and being familiar with all the ways that can happen, including intentional deception and manipulation, propaganda, etc. In other words, understanding human nature--the full scope, not just the happy parts--how people and the systems they create, motives, desires, fears can rely on, incentivize, and maintain beliefs in false things. In other other words, once you come to realize that most everything "out there" being 'sold' to you is not in your best interest. Some call it cynical. It's really facing reality, which seems harsh to those still in the matrix.

Most of us here completely get that, when we look at religions. Sadly, it doesn't stop there.

[stechriswillgil]

' The world is full of obvious things, which nobody by any chance actually ever observes'. Sherlock Holmes, Hound of the Baskervilles.
The school of ' Holmesheretenism ' had served me well for years.

[bharathdeva]

matt is doing a great job for humanity .

[Grim_Beard]

For shorthand:

Ontology: figuring out what is.
Epistemology: figuring out how to figure out what is.

Looking forward to finding out about 'foundherentism', as that's a new one to me.

[lucofparis]

Random minor nitpick: scientific skepticism _is_ a form of philosophical skepticism. All variants of philosophical skepticism seem to in fact be epistemic programmes on their own (including ancient versions such as pyrrhonism and academic skepticism), although they differ in degree, scope, and conclusions.

Skeptics aren't necessarily 'knowledge nihilists'. While Pyrrhonism has greatly influenced modern skeptic currents, suspension of judgement isn't considered an end goal in itself either. Scientific skepticism on the other hand, adopts science as a means to gain tentative, model-dependent knowledge, yet remains skeptical of claims insufficiently supported by empirical data.

In many ways, scientific skepticism is what happens when skepticism meets naturalism. This evolution of skeptical thought and shift in focus from normal and substantiated claims, to paranormal and unsubstantiated claims, is primarily due to the scientific revolution(s) of the modern period.

[tempestive]

Hmm, I may be a bit pedantic or just misunderstanding something, but isn't -logy (_logos_) the field of study of - ?
Shouldn't one say "adopt an epistemic stance" rather than "an epistemology", a field of study?

Just like there's no personalized physics, chemistry, immunology, anthropology, etc etc

[christopherhamilton]

I love this but can I suggest you slow down a little and inject a little emphasis on select words/ideas?

[Geimouver]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I understand you're saying is that skeptisism is evaluating beliefs and epistemology is about what knowledge is conceptually?

[vincentdeporter]

I consider myself a relative skeptic.

What I mean, is that I question my own assumptions, biases, and simply put, my overall capacity to understand. That's the main idea; applied to myself first, but I also hold others to the same epistemic standard for the ever-process of learning and self-correction.

Besides the trivial and mondain, I cannot be convinced about anything with 100% confidence. I'm very skeptical of any absolutist, since no one has universal context to be so arrogantly sure.

I do understand emotional conviction, but having had that one slapped in my own face, I now have quite a bit of frustration with those who confuse absolute knowledge with personal belief, even when anecdotally justified, which is a personal experience.

Simply put, learning is a process and my conclusions, even with a high confidence level, are provisional upon better or more complete information.

[eboer]

Everything going on. We have our own most trusted. Awesome..I will just move on and do my own thing. Thanks Texas. Not, that you had anything to do with anything with anything in Texas. Indiana, and Florida matter as well....

[shriggs]

Matt.You seem like a busy man.How do you ever get time to work and play?

[liberalrationalist]

Damn, Matt, it's scary how high your IQ must be. I started reading Haack's theory and barely understood it. (As I've admitted before and elsewhere, I have really crappy short term memory: while I'm reading something I'm somewhat okay. Get to the last line on a page and it's "Now what the eff did I just I think....what understanding Haack's argument requires is a deep understanding of what just what "knowledge" means. Kinda like in economics, smart people accepted once mercantilism (beggar thy neighbor) as the correct theory without truly understanding how economies are internally structured.

[ericb]

6:20 to 6:45 - that's the problem. Why insist on "defining truth" in a way that you also acknowledge you can't get to? That's theism talking. You don't need to "define truth" in terms of "reality" any more than you need to "define goodness" in terms of god.

[Lord]

Why post two videos next to eachother? Means this one is not receiving the same amount of views.

[infinitemonkey]

You can't use the Drake equation to infer life because we only roughly know the first 2 of 7 variables. What we can and will do is send a mission to the ocean world Europa.

[eboer]

Eating there own. very disheartening. Start following your own. These can lead you to your own.

[DrJasonTorn]

Matt - Darth Dawkins has been challenging you to a debate. Would there ever be a situation that you would consider this? I find DD to be the worst of the worst - and I understand not wanting to engage with him. However I’m just curious if you’d ever consider it. Moderated? What if $$ were raised for the debate - with the amount going towards your charity of choice???