Despite the efforts of skeptics, there are no counter-examples that are sufficient in proving that the Closure Principle is invalid. This is Jonathan Vogel’s main argument in his paper, Are There Counterexamples to the Closure Principle? Vogel presents an interesting argument against counterexamples like Fred Dretske’s “Zebra Case”. He introduces a set of conditions required for such counterexamples to work, and in doing so, demonstrates why the Zebra Case is not even a genuine counterexample to the Closure Principle. In fact, Vogel’s own examples do a much better job of what the Zebra Case intended to accomplish, and even those fail. Interestingly, what accounts for the failure of both Vogel’s and Dretske’s counterexamples are what Vogel takes to be the main features of the very counterexamples that he presents. Those three main conditions have to do with non-arbitrariness, statistical probability, and abnormality. Vogel demonstrates why these counterexamples are insufficient against the Closure Principle through how these conditions are required to make a case against the principle, and how the skeptic line of questions are insufficient in dealing with the principle directly. What is most notable are the conditions put forth that constitute, what Vogel believes, are the best counterexamples against the Closure Principle. He brilliantly reveals how the epistemic weight of those features hold lightly against the Closure Principle, and heavily against the skeptic’s argument. It is this operation of Vogel’s three conditions that will be explored at length for the purpose of establishing several facts. The first is that Vogel’s three conditions adequately take away the plausibility of Dretske’s Zebra Case, and prove the validity of ... ... middle of paper ... ...ermore, the line of questions that the skeptic constantly appeals to in shown to be logically flawed in their form and through the fact that they violate the three conditions. Finally, when the skeptic attempts to sidestep these defenses by claiming they are irrelevant to what skepticism intends to prove, it is the skeptic’s argument that is shown to be irrelevant instead. This final piece of the puzzle against the skeptic’s stance against the Principle of Closure can only be upheld by Vogel’s three conditions, otherwise, it would undoubtedly lead to further random series of questions by the skeptic’s which serve no real epistemological purpose. This is how, the very conditions that hold up the most genuine counterexamples available to skeptics demonstrates both why their own argument fails and that there are no real counterexamples against the Principle of Closure.
...t something can only happen if certain conditions prevents the very fulfilling of that condition prevents it from ever happening." (Colmer 211)
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
The Raven paradox includes three plausible premises, and derives from them a fairly implausible-looking conclusion about the confirmation of generalizations.
...is inability to provide sufficient evidence for the theory resulted in the failure to overcome Meno’s Paradox.
The strength of the skeptical argument lies in the fact that it can not be
I will show that Kelly's response to the question of epistemic significance of peer disagreement is not compelling. In my explanation of Kelly's argument, I will show that it is contradictory of him to assert the first persons perspective and the right reasons view. I will then examine the third person perspective, and show that this is more compatible with the right reasons view. Nevertheless I will propose an objection in the form of a question. Specifically, why should the difference between first person and third person change my thinking skeptically? Would this view only be attractive from the third person view? The third person perspective, the right reasons view as Kelly explains it, plus what I will call external Validation of a belief makes a more compelling argument.
The thesis of the Epilogue comes from an unorthodox definition of faith and belief. Belief in the Cartesian World refers to something that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The key term in this definition
I think the best way to reject the second argument of moral skepticism is by further assessing the thoughts of Graham. Graham raises the question of how respect actually exists in the real world. For example, an individual getting offended every time someone else claims that people in other countries exist. Just because a statement or fact might be offensive to one individual does not change the reality that such a thing does not exist. Thus moral skepticism can be assessed as a viewpoint of whether or not it is morally acceptable to diagnose and label people that may have mental disorders.
In his attempt to resolve this third antinomy, Henry Allison begins by arguing that the thesis demands an unconditioned causality.6
.... Whatever stance is taken there can be an equal amount of proof and methods to disprove the opposite. That is ultimately the sensible way to solve the dispute, by seeing them as having a symbiotic relationship. One flourishes off of the other, in a cyclic fashion.
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
...th much like Hume stood by skepticism. He relies blindly on faith to explain a large part of what he is trying to discredit Hume for. It is almost as if he is not making a definitive statement on the existence of metaphysics. Rather, he is caught in the middle, claiming that it may be true in one instance, but not in another.
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the
... a hole of doubt, therefore decreasing the reliability held within whichever knowledge claim I am trying to prove to be correct. Within our society, there have been occasional instances where doubt has been heightened during the journey to prove a knowledge claim correct. The process of a skeptic works only to illuminate the weaknesses in our knowledge claims and in doing this will prove or disprove the claim itself. There have been many examples of skepticism within the fields of science that have led to doubt such as the ability for other planets to sustain life and skepticism within history can be seen in the simple idea of whether or not certain events even took place in the past. The further we dig, the more we discover that contradicts and weakens what we believe. Overall, skepticism is a pathway that leads to a more accurate knowledge claim and a better truth.