The logical impossibility of skepticism.

[LucyJr]

Basically skepticism claims that nothing can be known, or in other cases, is forever sceptic toward truth claims.

"To state that "nothing can be known" is itself unknowable, is to state that we know for a fact that "nothing can be known" is unknowable. This admits at least one form of knowledge, and the metaphysical proposition "I can discern truth". It is therefore self-refuting; only justified through an infinite regress of not knowing knowledge claims and not knowing that you can know them ad infinitum." - Wikipedia

But the "only justified through an infinite regress of not knowing knowledge claims and not knowing that you can know them ad infinitum." is itself a impossible foundation or solution, because one has to reject in the spirit of skepticism even this solution, and this at ad infinitum, but than he must reject that also, so the idea of absolute skepticism is totally a illusion, a trick of the mind.

Here is how Blaise Pascal puts it:
“Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were (sceptics), they would be wrong.”

Therefore skepticism is not only a self-refuting and absurd view, but a absolute illusion. To rely on skepticism is to rely on non-sense. The skeptic, in my opinion, shield himself in a castle, rejecting any claim of absolute truth. But of course, the 'castle' is a illusion, it has not a solid foundation, its is a error of the mind, a fake.

One must therefore at any cost recognise the actual impossibility of rejecting all truth claims, and he finds himself in the face of the immediate and harsh reality of the battles of ideas and all truth claims.

In the best case, the sceptic is a indecisive person, but not someone who has found any solid metaphysical foundation.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

So what do you make of your own skeptical assessment of skepticism?

 

[Dohavior]

I kind of thought skepticism was what one observes of speculation and it has to do with the unknowing's acquiring of knowledge, like a go between word that rides the median.

One could say that "Basically skepticism claims that nothing can be *guessed*" because if guessed it would not be tethered to an origin and there for not parented by preceding prototypical factoids.

Kind of like the quote "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." by Eleanor Roosevelt.

But can anything truly ever be "guessed" is a question of the entropy behind sentience.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

So what do you make of your own skeptical assessment of skepticism?

Firstly, how can one be skeptical toward the absurd and non-sense? There is nothing worthy of skepticism in the face of absurdity. Absurdity is not a supposed truth. Its like your asking why one is skeptical toward self-refuting and contradictory propositions. There is nothing to be skeptic there.

Secondly, skepticism is usually viewed as absolute skepticism, meaning a stuborness to accept as knowable any truth claim. So, its not just about one or two cases. That's not skepticism. I mean, in healthy doses, its good to be a skeptic, and you are, wether you want it or not. But its not any good to be absurdly skeptic, to push skepticism toward non-sense.

 

[LucyJr]

I kind of thought skepticism was what one observes of speculation and it has to do with the unknowing's acquiring of knowledge, like a go between word that rides the median.

One could say that "Basically skepticism claims that nothing can be *guessed*" because if guessed it would not be tethered to an origin and there for not parented by preceding prototypical factoids.

Kind of like the quote "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." by Eleanor Roosevelt.

But can anything truly ever be "guessed" is a question of the entropy behind sentience.

Sory, but I don't seem capable to understand what you said. Can you explain it in more understandable terms, make it more 'cleaner'?
I know you always bring something interesting as a INTP, and that's why I'm interested

 

[apemon]

Maybe skepticism is more of a place of perceiving. Skepticism itself implies division doesn't it? Coming from a place of wholeness there would be no need of it anyway perhaps.

 

[hk427f3]

Erm, "skepticism" means lots of different things. It kind of seems like you are using one meaning of the word to attack another one.

Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims. - Also Wikipedia.

Which of these two are you concerned about?

 

[Dohavior]

Erm, "skepticism" means lots of different things. It kind of seems like you are using one meaning of the word to attack another one.

Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims. - Also Wikipedia.

Which of these two are you concerned about?

Philosophical skepticism <--- 2 words
methodological skepticism <--- 2 words

We are talking about the definition of ONE word skepticism. Your pluralism "means lots of different" and concatenation (we are talking adjectives) is a strange deviation from the normal quantification.

I further wonder where one comes when common clarification is seen as a form of attack?

 

[sprinkles]

Ugh. I knew as soon as I saw this thread who started it.

I still have you blocked but I don't even have to read the OP to tell you that whatever you wrote in it is not done by sensible people.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think skeptics and the assertive are good for each other.

The assertive are skeptical about skepticism and skeptics are assertive about dangers of assertion. Round and round they go - but insight somehow comes out of the spin.

 

[sprinkles]

I think skeptics and the assertive are good for each other.

The assertive are skeptical about skepticism and skeptics are assertive about dangers of assertion. Round and round they go - but insight somehow comes out of the spin.

I'm mostly skeptical about people. If people weren't asserting things, I'd have little to be skeptical about.

I'm not so worried about whether something can be known but rather if I know it, and more importantly if you actually know it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm mostly skeptical about people. If people weren't asserting things, I'd have little to be skeptical about.

I'm not so worried about whether something can be known but rather if I know it, and more importantly if you actually know it.

I can see that kind of thing being useful at times and being counter-productive at times, depending upon the extent of the skepticism.

If skepticism extends to things which are universally accepted as true (excepting strong skeptics) it can make conversation and advancement almost impossible. Similarly, if what universally accepted as true were never questioned, then advancement would also not occur.

If someone is going to be skeptical about universally accepted truths, they better have a good reason - and importantly - a cogent explanation. People who are skeptical about everything ought to focus their skepticism to epistemological studies, but maintain a practical acceptance of common truths - otherwise it can make for impractical and unnecessary clumsiness of thought.


I think that I am a type of climate-change skeptic. I am not skeptical about the theory, but I am skeptical about the importance of the theory, or the assertion that it is necessary to do something about it.

 

[sprinkles]

I can see that kind of thing being useful at times and being counter-productive at times, depending upon the extent of the skepticism.

If skepticism extends to things which are universally accepted as true (excepting strong skeptics) it can make conversation and advancement almost impossible. Similarly, if what universally accepted as true were never questioned, then advancement would also not occur.

If someone is going to be skeptical about universally accepted truths, they better have a good reason - and importantly - a cogent explanation. People who are skeptical about everything ought to focus their skepticism to epistemological studies, but maintain a practical acceptance of common truths - otherwise it can make for impractical and unnecessary clumsiness of thought.


I think that I am a type of climate-change skeptic. I am not skeptical about the theory, but I am skeptical about the importance of the theory, or the assertion that it is necessary to do something about it.

Like I said I don't think anyone with sense is THAT skeptical. If they are they may as well quit. Go join Descartes in his grave or something.

 

[LucyJr]

sprinkles, you still need to attack me in passive agressive ways? why won't you stop?

 

[Elis]

"To state that "nothing can be known" is itself unknowable, is to state that we know for a fact that "nothing can be known" is unknowable.

How do you know that someone who states that "nothing can be known" holds it as an absolute truth. What about belief?

Here is how Blaise Pascal puts it:
“Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were (sceptics), they would be wrong.”

Therefore...

how is this a sound conclusion?

But of course, the 'castle' is a illusion, it has not a solid foundation, its is a error of the mind, a fake.

So you're saying it can't be proven?

 

[casie]

Philosophical skepticism <--- 2 words
methodological skepticism <--- 2 words

We are talking about the definition of ONE word skepticism. Your pluralism "means lots of different" and concatenation (we are talking adjectives) is a strange deviation from the normal quantification.

I further wonder where one comes when common clarification is seen as a form of attack?

This is an extremely lazy dismissal of a very good point. OP has not been clear enough about what scepticism means.

 

[Dohavior]

This is an extremely lazy dismissal of a very good point. OP has not been clear enough about what skepticism means.

That statement was to Meer whom is not the OP. I suggest if you wish to read an extremely lazy dismissal of a very good point to read the OP its all about laziness and dismissal.
----------------------------------------
I disagree with OP on the basis that his definition is invalid using a pronoun as an operator "Be" and nouns "know"/"nothing"
They confused assigning (=) with equating (==). One can never say noun == noun, but they can say pronoun = noun. I hope the OP examples are not an insinuation to declare all words that end with -ing as verbs or that all iterations of know{*} are verbs.

The OP demonstrates an extreme selfish notion of cutting off of reflective failure a sure sign of sheltered operant conditioning. For if his statement proves true the ramifications are that all inquiry is vain and the very fact he uttered this post is a self defeating hypocrisy unless he imposes its truth rather than verifies it which is a verbal threat at other forum goers.

How about this inquiry towards OP why you hiding your doings with beings with that gay lisp of yours?

 

[LucyJr]

I disagree with OP on the basis that his definition is invalid using a pronoun as an operator "Be" and nouns "know"/"nothing"
They confused assigning (=) with equating (==). One can never say noun == noun, but they can say pronoun = noun. I hope the OP examples are not an insinuation to declare all words that end with -ing as verbs or that all iterations of know{*} are verbs.

The OP demonstrates an extreme selfish notion of cutting off of reflective failure a sure sign of sheltered operant conditioning. For if his statement proves true the ramifications are that all inquiry is vain and the very fact he uttered this post is a self defeating hypocrisy unless he imposes its truth rather than verifies it which is a verbal threat at other forum goers.

How about this inquiry towards OP why you hiding your doings with beings with that gay lisp of yours?

I don't get you here. I'm not a INTP

Do you think this has anything to do with language, since I see you keep pressing on the language aspect?

The OP demonstrates an extreme selfish notion of cutting off of reflective failure a sure sign of sheltered operant conditioning. For if his statement proves true the ramifications are that all inquiry is vain and the very fact he uttered this post is a self defeating hypocrisy unless he imposes its truth rather than verifies it which is a verbal threat at other forum goers.

I think rather this is a truth that emerges self-evidently because of the sell-refuting nature of skepticism, the truth that skepticism, as is classicaly understood in philosophy, is self-defeating.

Skepticism can not be a philosophical position in itself. Its nature is that like of a parasite. Its a reaction toward any absolute philosophical position...thus it is ultimately self-refuting.

 

[Skarekrow]

Firstly, how can one be skeptical toward the absurd and non-sense? There is nothing worthy of skepticism in the face of absurdity. Absurdity is not a supposed truth. Its like your asking why one is skeptical toward self-refuting and contradictory propositions. There is nothing to be skeptic there.

Secondly, skepticism is usually viewed as absolute skepticism, meaning a stuborness to accept as knowable any truth claim. So, its not just about one or two cases. That's not skepticism. I mean, in healthy doses, its good to be a skeptic, and you are, wether you want it or not. But its not any good to be absurdly skeptic, to push skepticism toward non-sense.

Firstly, if we are talking “truth claims” then you should acknowledge that the skeptics could be correct.
Perhaps this universe and life we lead is all just an illusion? Or a hologram as recent quantum physics suggests?
Perhaps this world is an elaborate “computer simulation” by technology so advanced the artificial consciousness that is “ourselves” cannot fathom it?
Or perhaps it is all just very simple…
Skepticism is a good thing in my own opinion to hold on to…not to dwell on, because when we dwell on something without ever committing ourselves then we are stagnate and move nowhere in our own evolution as people.
So I agree with you on that degree…what would you define as “absurdly skeptic”?

 

[LucyJr]

How do you know that someone who states that "nothing can be known" holds it as an absolute truth. What about belief?

Because it is supposed to be a absolute truth for any "hard skeptic".
The statement "nothing can be ultimately known" its not a belief...its a statement that holds a pretention of truth.

how is this a sound conclusion?

“Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were (sceptics), they would be wrong.”

Because the skeptic is not skeptic toward skepticism...he is skeptic toward absolute truth claims. Skepticism is like a parasite. If everybody would be a skeptic, skepticism would have no meat to eat, skepticism would reamain 'hungry' because this position can not feed out of skepticism itself, it would sink its boat.
Althought there is difference between a person that holds this position and the position itself...hovewer, for some reasons, I think Pascal was right, because he didn't mean it in a serious sense, he say more in a ridicule tone.

So you're saying it can't be proven?

I'm saying it can be disproved.