“A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence” (adapted from Paul Kurtz, 1994). Evaluate this approach in two areas of knowledge.
A skeptic, according the quotation, is “one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence”. In this essay, my main objective is to determine the legitimacy of this claim and the working definition. Some key words that I will in my own words to fully assess the entirety of the topic in my view are clarity, definition, consistency, logic, adequacy, and evidence. Clarity is being upfront and straightforward--portraying the material in its correct form. Definition is the meaning of a word or ideology. If something is consistent, it is unchanging. I would like to note that just because something is consistent, it does not mean that it is correct or valid. Using logic is using the way of knowing, reason, to see a certain way based on a set of principles. Adequacy is determining if something is good enough or not. Evidence is material that is put forth to add to a debate; it may be evidence for or against a certain side. Leaving the word that is being defined aside for the time being--skeptic--I think I need to call individual attention to each phrase.
“One who is willing to question any knowledge claim” is a generalization. How can we identify that “one”? Humans, to some extent, will always question what is set before them. Although the aforementioned statement is a generalization, it can be backed with support. “The roots of our peculiar curiosity can be linked to a trait of the human species call neoteny” (Stafford). Neoteny...
... middle of paper ...
... searching for ways of improvement or betterment. They question the fibers of how society is “supposed” to act and expand ideas outside of the box. They are the ones closer to the specific definition of a skeptic--they question everything.
Perception, in the present, is guided by how we have come to know. People look through different lenses in how they view the world based on differing paradigms. The process of learning and experiencing something is a collective knowledge that has been gathered in the past. There are realists and there are idealists out there. My upbringing as an only child and a Lutheran put me as more of an idealist. I tend to see the potential that people have, not their present day, black-and-white self. But I imagine the effect that they could have on the world one day and the effect that I could have on that person to jumpstart their effect.
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.
In light of this knowledge of the inconclusiveness of our beliefs, it is a duty placed on everyone of us to be wary of trusting oneself more than you trust another. Remember, one is what one has been shown to be. One knows only what he has seen.
Moderata Fonte’s Venetian ladies debated the worth of women while cavorting in their fictional garden in 1605; Tempel Anneke met her unhappy fate in the 1660s. The seemingly enlightened and forward-looking feminist attitudes articulated in Fonte's text were absent from the Brunswick courtroom where the allegations against Tempel Anneke eventually brought about her death. The two accounts illustrate the differences in the attitudes towards women between European states during the 17th century. The differences are technically religiously based, however, they deal with the differences of the specific regional factors of the areas discussed. The differences explain why the attitudes of Fonte’s ladies and the persecutors of Tempel coexisted in roughly the same era. Fonte's ladies are Italian Catholics, and Anna's neighbors are German Protestants, therefore, the ideals of women are varied based on religious experience. Additionally, the theory of reason of state that came about with the consolidation of authority consisted of centralization and secularism that subordinated the social role ...
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines skepticism as denial or doubt of a particular belief, fact, or action. Skepticism deals primarily with questioning knowledge from an opposing perspective and refrains f...
He says as long as a statement can be disproved we are right to doubt it, no matter how many people believe it or for how long they have done so. This made me start to think about how in today’s society people mostly follow what is seen as ‘acceptable.’ When reading I came across a line that read, “what should worry us is not the number of people who oppose us, but how good their reasons are for doing so. We should therefore divert our attention away from the presence of unpopularity to the explanations for it.” (Pg. 29)
“Properly open mind is just the most enjoyable way to live” Ronald Geiger said in his article about skepticism. Skepticism is one of the first steps on the road to open, creative and critical thinking that young people should take in their lives. It is important for the people in adolescence, like high school students, to learn how to think properly and be critical toward some of the aspects of society. The course in skepticism in high school will allow students to have positive effects on their intellectual level, ethical standing, physical condition and psychological status. Skepticism should be included in high school curriculars and be one of the requirements for graduation because of its tremendous amount of beneficial factors in the life of high school students.
The revival of ancient skepticism in early XVIth century has been considered one of the major forces in the development of modern thought, especially as regards the discussion about the nature of knowledge and the sciences. Richard Popkin in his History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza (1979) has shown that skeptical arguments were influential in the attack against traditional scholastic conceptions of science, opening the way to the development of the new scientific method. The dispute between those who embraced skepticism and those who tried to refute or surpass it was central to the philosophical scene well into the XVIIIth century.
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
The way that each individual interprets, retrieves, and responds to the information in the world that surrounds you is known as perception. It is a personal way of creating opinions about others and ourselves in everyday life and being able to recognize it under various conditions. Each person’s perceptions are used as a kind of filter that every piece of information has to pass through before it determines the effect that it has or will have on the person from the stimulus. It is convincing to believe that we create multiple perceptions about different situations and objects each day. Perceptions reflect our opinions in many ways. The quality of a person’s perceptions is very important and can affect the response that is given through different situations. Perception is often deceived as reality. “Through perception, people process information inputs into responses involving feelings and action.” (Schermerhorn, et al.; p. 3). Perception can be influenced by a person’s personality, values, or experiences which, in turn, can play little role in reality. People make sense of the world that they perceive because the visual system makes practical explanations of the information that the eyes pick up.
The reader, like modern man, must not give into “the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of skepticism,” but instead must “live in uncertainty, poised, by the conditions of our humanity and of the world in which we live, between certitude and skepticism, between presumption and despair “(Collins 36).
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
The way people decide to see the world will affect where they go, and how they will make decisions. A good example of this is: someone who sees the world as a wonderful place will most likely want to travel, and experience life, but someone who sees the world as a scary place will most likely stay in the house. The reason why two people can be such opposites is because one might gear their attention to the scary things while the other decides to look at the wonderful things. How they decide to perceive those experiences or events might affect their decisions as well. So really, when looking at it, perception can make or break someone. Ultimately, perception will represent how someone chooses to see the world, and how they choose to live their
...ssurance and the rejection of shifting ground and sand in order to find rock or clay ”(50). He use doubt for finding truth which has no doubt in it and not for doubting itself.
...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
In this paper I will explain what objective knowledge is and why we can have objective knowledge. I will clearly define several key terms that are crucial to this discussion. With these definitions in mind, I will explain the necessity of objective knowledge for reason and reality. Then, I will outline and expound on a reduction absurdum argument, explaining the contradictory postulate and exposing a contradiction. Finally, I will describe the view of Global Skepticism, and show how the Global Skeptic lives in opposition to his or her outlook. Through these arguments, it will be apparent that logic and reality demand the existence of objective knowledge.