|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. |
Skepticism/Nozick: depends on that we acquire our knowledge indirectly.
Skepticism/Nozick: common form: claiming that someone could believe something even though it is wrong.
Punchline: the truth of
Condition (3) "If p would be false, S would not believe it"
is compatible with the fact that a person believes p, although p is false. - Justification: condition (3) is not an entailment (Nozick: = formal implication).
Condition (3) does not mean that in all situations, where not-p is applied, S does not believe that p. - Condition (3) can be true even if there is a possible situation where non-p and S believes that p. - Condition (3) speaks of the situation in which p is false. - Not every situation where p is false, is the situation that would prevail if p is wrong. - Possible World: condition (3) speaks of the next ~ p-world to our actual world. - It speaks of the not-p-neighborhood - E.g. Dream, E.g. demon E.g. brains in the tank - but only if p is false: - So only in the next non-p-worlds. - Even if we were in the tank, condition (3) could not apply.
Punchline: I do not know that I am not in the tank - but I know that I write this. Because for this we have a connection, a trace.
Skepticism/NozickVsSkepticism: The skepticism is right that we have no connection to some facts, but it is wrong, that we could not connect to many other facts - including those that imply that we are not brains in a vat, so facts which we believe but do not know.
Skepticism/NozickVsSkepticism/(s): Conclusion: 1. I know that skepticism is wrong - 2. If the skepticism were true, I would not believe that I know much. 3. Because the assertion of skepticism that I do not know much, does not consist in the possibility of confusion with an illusory world, but simply in a world where you do not know much - 4. That I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat, is an isolated special case - 5. Even if I knew very little, I would still know that I am sitting on a chair - 6. Even if that would be wrong, it would not follow that I am a brain a vat._____________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.
Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981
The Nature of Rationality 1994