Paul Kurtz, died in October 2012, was a philosopher and one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement, who embodied the principle of skepticism as thoughtful inquiry. The term “skepticism” simply means “thoughtful”, which is far from modern misconceptions of the words, connotation as meaning “cynical” and “nihilism”. From the title, could I gather that Kurtz was trying to demonstrate skeptics to be mere critical thinkers who are determined to learn the truth? Does it depend on adequate evidence to form a consistent logical explanation before acquiring such knowledge? Contemporary scenarios are extracted from several well-known Psychology and Chemistry experiments and personally engaged experiments in the two subject within the IB curriculum; this will be linked with Reason and Perception within the Ways of Knowing, and Natural Sciences and Human Sciences within the Areas of Knowledge. Since both sciences and their experiments have extreme ethical concerns, validity and reliability; it has led philosophers and scientists to be skeptical of the knowledge acquired in these areas. By being skeptical, is it necessary to have consistency in logic or could there be a designated time and place for it? Skepticism occurs to be dangerous, for one can switch mind off to new ideas that challenge the conventional wisdom. There are many examples of ideas that were ridiculed when they first appeared but then were later proven true. For example, Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) suggested the theory of continental drift in 1912, which rejected by his contemporaries, but was resurrected in the 1960s as part of the theory of plate tectonics. So basically, for skeptics, an idea that doesn’t fit the theories in that time period, does not necessaril... ... middle of paper ... ...6923/. 20th November 2013. “Paul Kurtz” ISHV Mourns the Loss of Our Founder Paul Kurtz: 1925-2012. 2010. Paul Kurtz. http://paulkurtz.net. 7th November 2013. “Skeptic >> eSkeptic >> Wednesday, October 24th, 2012”. eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics society. 2012. Skeptic. 24th October 2012. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-10-24/. 3rd December 2013. Tugoy, Ivan. “Psychology and the problem of scientific knowledge.” Psychology and the problem of scientific knowledge. 2003. http://www.effecton.com. 4th Jan. 2014 van de Lagemaat, Richard. Theory Of Knowledge For The IB Diploma. Cambridge University Press. 2010. Print. “Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models.” N. d. http://schoolsites.leeschools.net/nfm/kassidyml/Documents/Transmission%20of%20aggression%20through%20imitation%20of%20aggressive%20models.pdf. 6th Jan 2014
Now in the case of Schulz, she talks about the famous philosopher Descartes. He brings up the argument that “error does not arise from believing something that isn’t true, but believing in insufficient evidence” (362). Descartes wanted to be an ideal thinker and take in every bit of evidence he possibly could before drawing a conclusion.
Dr. Gregory Boyd is a professor of theology at Bethel College. He attended such universities as the University of Minnesota, Yale Divinity School, and Princeton Theological Seminary. As well as being a professor he is a preaching pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, and has authored three books and several articles. This particular book is a dialogue between he and his father, Edward Boyd. Edward lives in Florida and worked for 35 years in sales management. He has six kids, 15 grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren.
The idea of skepticism contains many different opinions, viewpoints, and details all within one big topic. Skepticism, in shorter terms, is defined as “the theory that we do not have any knowledge. We cannot be completely certain that any of our beliefs are true.” The two main types of skepticism are known as academic skepticism, arguing that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing, and Pyrrhonian skepticism, which rejects the ideas of academic skepticism entirely. Two philosophers that had very strong attitudes towards skepticism, were René Descartes who was a global skeptic, and David Hume who entertained both global and local skepticism. Due to their theories about skepticism as a whole, we can now understand it and put our own
In the first chapter, Raymo, opens with talk of his childhood. He brings to the
The average person usually does not question 2,000 years of beliefs, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin. Buffon, in his encyclopedia called Historie Naturelle, he describes everything known in the natural world, strained the similarities between humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry. Although Buffon believed in organic change, he did not provide a reasonable mechanism for such changes. He thought the environment acted directly on organisms through what he called "organic particles". Buffon also published Les Epoques de la Nature(1788) where he suggests that the planet is much older than the 6,000 years the church had previously said (berkeley.edu./history/buffon).
All thoughts need to be rethought at certain point of the time. In that case, skepticism is a great tool as it makes one to question and rethink about pre-existing information. However, too much skepticism may not always be helpful in acquisition of knowledge as well. The skeptics may have the tendency to not believe in anything and show behaviour that is similar to that of the pessimistic. There has to be a balance between having too much or too less skepticism.
...ools and skills for skeptical thinking that are essential to survive in society today, many of which rely on critical thinking and common sense. In order for someone to be able to discern between true and false, right and wrong, they must be able to discuss the hypothesis, ignore any position of power, cast aside personal attachment to the subject or hypothesis, create a sound argument, have an understanding of Occam’s Razor, and have the ability to test the subject or hypothesis for falsities. These skills all prove necessary and important when comparing and contrasting anything, whether it’s from a scientific perspective or something that affects one’s daily life.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Skepticism in philosophical terms is the theory that certain knowledge is impossible. René Descartes’ first meditation surrounds the subject of concerning those things that can be called into doubt. In this meditation, he contemplates three main arguments. Can we trust our senses, the dream argument, and the evil genius argument? The strongest skeptical argument present in Descartes meditation is, do we know that we are not dreaming, otherwise known as the dream argument. This is true because of the supporting premises that Descartes states are that “There are no certain indicators by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep”(Rene Descartes, 1641, p. 7). This statement from Descartes is true
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
It is only with acknowledging your mistakes, and repairing them that you can make science evolve. A scientist should always stay modest and critique his own theories. Without Imagination, Newton would have never found the theory of gravity, when he saw an apple fall out of a tree, and wondered why the moon wasn’t also falling.
van de Lagemaat, R. (2011) Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma, Cambridge University Press.
They think that each theory is based on different aspects and represents different truths, which are not absolute truths. Other than that, since a theory is a process taking place in society it undergoes constant changes and does not stay constant (Resnick & Wolff, 1987). This shows that since theories evolve with time the truth they represent at one point may change at another point in time therefore it can be argued that any epistemology or theory can never fully represent the truth, be it rationalism, empiricism or overdetermination. One can take the example of a common misconception people had during the ancient times which was that the Earth is flat and people can fall off if they go near the corners of the Earth. This idea during that time was considered as a truth but it was later proven by science that the Earth is anything but flat. Today people believe in the fact that the Earth is spherical, this shows how a truth may transform with the passage of
Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.
What is stated above happens around us all the time. Something might be proven today, but proven wrong tomorrow. Therefore I completely agree to this statement. But how do we accept something to be knowledge, and what makes one thing knowledge and the other thing just a theory? We can look at it from various aspects.