PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Three Responses to Skepticism [HD]

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Jennifer Nagel (University of Toronto) looks at three historically influential responses to the challenge of skepticism. We start with René Descartes’s efforts to prove that God would not let us be chronically deceived. Next, we examine Bertrand Russell’s efforts to disprove the skeptic through a strategy called ‘inference to the best explanation’, and we finish with G. E. Moore’s common sense approach.

Subscribe!

More on Jennifer Nagel:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[JP-dhxv]

Moore: I have hands therefore I exist.

[vule]

This Epistemology thing is for me all the questions I thought of and never bothered to say, analyze them, not even at the pub. And some people organized this and scientifically worked on the subject.
I find this Amazing!

[jamescarter]

Moore was that one kid who put up his hand in class to answer only to show he didn’t understand the question

[JakobVirgil]

If someone says your hands don't exist punch them in the nose.

[Kabitu]

I haven't read Moore, but I really hope there's more substance to his case than this, because what was presented here was 100% pure-grade fallacy from beginning to end.

[jhljhl]

If I don't exist, tell that to my creditors.

[CarneadesOfCyrene]

Some simple responses to these arguments for all you skeptics out there:
*1. Doubt the Cogito:* Descartes' immovable point with which to move the world is not so immovable. It contains an argument, (therefore) which the deceiver can distort, which is why Descartes, in his original formulation did not include the "ergo", does thought imply existence? Maybe not. And how do you know you are thinking? Or, at least, that the sensation that you are claiming is "thought" is actually "thought"? Perhpas instead it is tickle. And what is this "you" you speak of? Personal identity is a shaky concept at best, even if there was no evil deceiver around.

*2. Abduction is Bad Reasoning* Russell relies on the flimsiest of types of reasoning, namely abduction, or argument to the best explanation. There is not, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, or instinct and truth. These are things that humans like, sure, and make us feel good, but that does not make them true! Furthermore, we can't even come up with a consistent system of mathematics or logic (see Godel, sorry Russell), let alone a consistent system of science. Finally, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, we cannot just take some belief at face value because we had it before. We all start without beliefs, (unless you think babies have propositional attitudes) so there should be no privilege given to some that we happen to acquire sooner.

*3. Destruction of debate* Moore's argument is the worst of all because of what it could lead us to. This is the kind of reasoning that leads to fights instead of discussion. Steadfastly refusing that you could not be wrong is what leads people of faith to fight instead of talk. Many people consider the fact that God exists, something that is everyday and basic. But it seems that we want a philosophical argument for that claim, even though it might be categorized as a simple intuition. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. Moore pointing at his hands is no more effective than a theist pointing at a cross or waving around a Koran. And even if Moore proves effective against eh academic skeptic that is making the positive claim that you do not know, I see no way he can defeat the Pyrrhonian who does not know if you can know, and therefore has no burden of proof.

[cruelangel]

Let's run an experiment with some very strong hallucinogens and some really skilled philosophers and see if any of them can get out of their "bad case."

[qspec]

Moore's answer is literal hand waving.

[stefanyalpoesy]

Moore's argument reminds of Samuel Johnson reportedly countering Berkeley's notion of Idealism by kicking a rock and proclaiming "I refute it thus".

[mackdmara]

Love to see these videos. I am a bit to pragmatic to be a skeptic, but find it whimsical. That is its draw to me at least. Thank you

[heinrichkatz]

But wouldn't the hand be in some way also real if it would just be simulated or something similar since it's just an idea of that reoccurring object? We'd also say a computer game is real even if it doesn't have any physical properties or software in general

[patriciaverso]

My only complain is the volume of speech versus volume of the intro.

[dasse]

Absolute skepticism is self refuting: Absolute skeptics must also be skeptical of their own absolute skepticism. They must now either 1: Stumble into an infinate circular regress (aka madness) or 2: Reconise absolute skepticism is circular and reject it as a principle.

[platficker]

(I am happy to see at least one reference to "The Matrix.")

Who cares?  i.e. Why does knowledge matter?  If knowledge matters at all, global skepticism goes away quite quickly:

1) If I am dreaming, it follows that I will wake up.  I will worry about it then.  I don't NEED to do anything about it right now.

2) If I am a brain in a jar, then I will just have to live with that reality, even if I am not aware of it.  There's nothing I can do about it.

3)The evil genius never goes away.  My reality, beyond myself, can be put in a box (which might even contain a benevolent god)  which might be controlled by an evil genius.  The strategy is that the evil genius holds his power in reserve, and can defeat my supposed knowledge at any time.  There's nothing I can do about this, either.

4) If there is nothing I can do about it, as in cases 2 and 3, then knowledge doesn't matter.

What remains are practical issues of knowledge, generally about forming decisions with respect to taking actions.  This could include abstract questions such as "How do I serve God?"  (Do I know what good is?  Will this action result in good?)

When the standard for knowledge is strictly too high, as in global skepticism, it becomes paralyzing.  There is the potential for the sin of commission, as well as the sin of omission.

[aliecat]

"Descartes thinks that the idea of an infinite and perfect being could not have come from an imperfect being"
Does he ever make an effort to prove this assertion? How would he go about doing so?

[paulharris]

Offer the argument "What IS money, anyway? to a loanshark to whom you owe money, and you will quickly face "relevant consequentialism..."

[thomaswkelly]

I really enjoy how clearly you present your discussions. Thank you ☺

[H.J.G]

This is hands down the best series on YouTube!

[munstrumridcully]

The only meaningful counter to philosophical skepticism is a pragmatic one, IMO. As I see it, whether what any of us experience is true reality, a matrix, a dream brought on by an evil demon, what have you, is largely irrelevant to the fact that the only reality we have access to is the one we experience through our senses. As such, my main concern is achieving the most desirable(to me) outcomes as possible in the reality I experience, which means acting as if this experience is reality and finding the most successful strategy to predict my future experiences. IMO, this best strategy is an epistemology built on methodological skepticism, methodological naturalism and methodological empiricism. Basically, science.