|Skepticism: is an expression for the more or less well-formulated view that perceptual subjects cannot in principle have any security with regard to their knowledge about the external world. The doubts about the reliability of the sensory organs can be extended to doubts about the existence of an external world, if the possibility of a fundamental deception, for example by a permanent dream, is accepted. See also verification, evidence, perception, certainty, Moore's hands, solipsism._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Subjectivism/Skepticism: says that there is no ability of such universal applicability and validity within us tp verify and substantiate our judgments.
Skepticism/Relativism: Reason cannot be criticized without using reason at any other point to formulate this criticism.
Skepticism: a skepticism generated by reasoning can not be total.
I 31 ff
Skepticism: in order to criticize it, one should not understand it as a widely applicable trivial empty phrase, but as something concrete, in order to turn the tables. This allows the conflict betw the inner content of the thoughts and the relativizing external view to be openly recognized.
Subjectivism aims at a phenomenological reduction of thought to get out of them. This cannot succeed. Attempts to relativize the objectivity of a conceptual scheme fail for the same reason.
E.g. I cannot say "I believe that p, but this is merely a psychological fact that affects me. As for the truth, I do not settle".
NagelVsDescartes: demon: the idea of confused thoughts also contains the disentangled ones.
NagelVsSkepticism: may not use arguments at all - a false calculation cannot be made right by saying that a demon had confused it.
Logical skepticism/NagelVsSkepticism/Nagel: we can never reach a point where there are two possibilities that are compatible with all evidence. I cannot imagine that I am in a similar realization situation where 2 + 2 = 5, but my brain would be confused, because I could not imagine that 2 + 2 = 5. The logical skeptic offers no level of reason. - There is no point that allows reviewing the logic without presupposing it. - Not everything can be revised. - Something has to be maintained in order to check that the revision is justified._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Cambridge, MA 1979
The Last Word, New York/Oxford 1997
Das letzte Wort Stuttgart 1999
What Does It All Mean? Oxford 1987
Was bedeutet das alles? Stuttgart 1990
The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, in: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1980 Vol. I (ed) St. M. McMurrin, Salt Lake City 1980
Die Grenzen der Objektivität Stuttgart 1991
Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science New York 1982