Can Skepticism Be Defended, Perhaps In A Limited Form? Essay -- essays

Can Skepticism Be Defended, Perhaps In A Limited Form? 1. Introduction This essay centres around what it means to know something is true and also why it is important to distinguish between what you know and do not or can not know. The sceptic in challenging the possibility of knowing anything challenges the basis on which all epistemology is based. It is from this attack on epistemology that the defence of scepticism is seen. 2. Strong Scepticism Strong scepticism states that it is not possible to know anything. That is we cannot have absolute knowledge of anything. This can however immediately have the reflexive argument turned on it and have the question begged of it: â€Å"If it is not possible to know anything then how is it you know that nothing is knowable ?†. Strong Scepticism is therefore unable to be defended. 3. A Definition of Knowledge Knowledge can be said to be information that the brain has received that meets a certain set of criteria. When someone states that they know something they must also believe that, that something is so. If they did not believe in it then how could they take it in as knowledge ?, they would instead be doubtful of it and look for evidence or justification as to why they should believe it. Secondly for someone to believe in something they must also believe that it is true. If they did not believe that it was true then what is mentioned above would not occur. So, so far it is decided that knowledge should be true belief. How does one come to the conclusion that something is true however ?. We seek justification. The justification really is the most important part of the criteria because without it one cannot say something is true and therefore cannot say that one believes. This does however bring up the question of how does something become justified ?, do we hear it from other people ?, see it on the news ?. The justification of something really depends on its predictability. If something becomes predictable then it can becomes justified aswell. For example, I know that the sun will rise tomorrow is a fair thing to say because I believe this is so, I believe this is true, and I am justified in believing this due to my past experience* of the predictableness of the sun rising each day. The only problem with meeting the set of criteria laid out above is that one must use one senses to do so and as shall be shown ... ...Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Dancy, Jonathon (1985), An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Descartes, Rene (as translated by E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross) (1969), The Philosophical Works of Decartes vol. I - II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, Paul (1965), The Logic of Moral Discourse, New York: The Free Press. Gorovitz, Williams (1967), Philosophical Analysis, An Introduction to Its Language & Techniques, New York: Random House. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971), The Sophists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamlyn, D. W. (1983), The Theory of Knowledge, London: Macmillan Press. Harris, Errol (1969), Fundamentals of Philosophy - A Study of Classical Texts, U.S.A.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Harrison, J. (1966-67). A Philosopher's Nightmare or The Ghost not Laid. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol LXVII. Hume, David (1962), A Treatise of Human Nature, Great Britain: Fontana Library. Presley, C. F. (1967), The Identity Theory of Mind, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. van Inwagen, P. and Lowe E. (1996) . Why Is There Anything At All?. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol LXX.