• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is philosophical Skepticism true?

Mach said:
mach: Frank claims no one can be certain
Click to expand...

I would not claim "no one can be certain"...any more than I would claim "no one can know for sure that there are no gods."

The difference between:

since you claim you can't be certain!

...and...

Since it is impossible to answer the question: "Is what I consider REALITY actually REALITY...or is it some kind of illusion that the mind I am using manufactured for me?"...

...it appears we truly cannot KNOW anything with any degree of absolute certainty.

...is considerable and was as deliberate as your "It was no coincidence. <- I am certain of that."

At least I did not bite at that alluring apple.

I will acknowledge that my "agreement" with Cephus does seem to make me say that, but you did not use that as the reason for what you said. (I actually disagree with the stridency of Cephus' post insofar as he said without qualification...something that required qualification...qualifications that I introduced with my remarks.)


Frank, I'm being serious, since when have I played games in these forums? Not even sure I know how. No need for accusations right off.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think you can do that. You are one of the people from whom I think I could learn or re-learn.***

I just don't think you operate that above-board when dealing with me. Perhaps I am wrong.

It works best if you response to the OP position. If you "agree with someone else", it's like a debate by proxy.
Click to expand...

Actually, the practice of an "amen" or a "You hit the nail on its head here" or a simple "what so-and-so said" is as regular and accepted a practice on the Internet as creating a thread, Mach. Your disapproval here is noted. And while I will attempt not to use that when posting in your threads, I think the practice works just fine.


If I pin you on something they said, you could just reply with "I never wrote that", etc. I'm trying specifically to AVOID games. And as I noted, if you instead just copy/paste your prior positions, since I have invested a lot of time in that already, its not game playing to inform you that i would not do so again. (hint that's called honest, and there is no negative connotation there).
Click to expand...

If I agree with something someone says and you call me on it, I would not say I never wrote that just because of the reason you suggested. I am not duplicitous.

Fact is, after agreeing with Cephus, I realized I did not agree in whole with the way he said what he said...and I added the qualifications I mentioned above.

I do recognize the inherent contradiction of, "We cannot know anything about reality with certainty." Sorta like the "Reality is subjective" assertion.

I'm following with intense interest.


***At 80, I am so long out of school, the more rigorous philosophy has left me. It still is the most interesting subject of all, so I want to participate, but often I have to do so with knowing my serious limitations. I can make meaningful observations...and often can stimulate a line of discussion even with the limitations, so I do enter where some might think I would be wise to fear to tread.
 
Absentglare said:
There are multiple solutions to the problem.

The easiest one, without even redefining what knowledge is, is by elaborating on the definition of "justified."
Click to expand...

Multiple solutions, but none widely accepted.
 
Not sure how anyone gets past the problem with "justified" being anything other than subjective. I cannot think of anyway to make "justified" objective...which would give some credence to "justified belief."

Without that (and we are "without that")..."justified belief" is about as useless a philosophical concept as Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager.
 
Nilly said:
So honestly the experiment kind of blows my mind and I don't know completely what to make of it. Yes you're right that the method of observation affects the particle. But that's not the point. The point is that the method of observation is precisely the same no matter which detector the entangled photon goes to (D1 or D3). However the measurement is always different at each of D1 or D3. The only difference between the two scenarios is our knowledge of the rest of the setup.
Click to expand...

OK, so I read the WIki last night and just watched the video.
I think the conclusions drawn in the video are different than the positions from the wiki that seems most widely accepted and consisted with standard quantum mechanics.
Like "knowledge changes it", and "back history"
Look up Wheeler's delayed choice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment
Bohmian Interpretation (Quantum potential being what Wheeler didn't take into account)
In Bohm's quantum mechanics, the particle obeys classical mechanics except that its movement takes place under the additional influence of its quantum potential. A photon or an electron has a definite trajectory and passes through one or the other of the two slits and not both, just as it is in the case of a classical particle. The past is determined and stays what it was up to the moment T1 when the experimental configuration for detecting it as a wave was changed to that of detecting a particle at the arrival time T2. At T1, when the experimental set up was changed, Bohm's quantum potential changes as needed, and the particle moves classically under the new quantum potential till T2 when it is detected as a particle. Thus Bohmian mechanics restores the conventional view of the world and its past. The past is out there as an objective history unalterable retroactively by delayed choice, contrary to the radical view of Wheeler.
Click to expand...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I 'sense' that there is going to be alot of confusion..in this experience.
Ironically most philosophical skeptics are dogmatic in their belief that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. But they are certain that you cannot know anything.
Click to expand...
A clear sign that they do not understand something, and have not adequately explained it.
I wonder if people with bigger brains are attracted to more credible and useful fields (physics, medicine, chemistry, etc.), and philosophy gets the dreamers who are content to make up something, publishe it, then just teach (and never follow up on research, make it consistent, etc.)
 
Mach said:
Unfortunately that's just as contradictory as skepticism in general.
You claim the point of philosophy is X <--- this is given in absolute terms. To reject the is to accept that philosophy is NOT about X.
(let X be whatever you claimed above...)

Accepting basic logic is not optional at this point either, it's self-evident in our communicating and definitions in general. Claiming logic doesn't apply...itself would necessitate accepting logic for the claim to make sense...


Indeed.
And yet this : We cannot know anything about reality with certainty.
contradicts the above. Science does allow for (scientific certainty) with regards to reality. Skepticism as defined in the OP, does not.
Click to expand...

From your posts it seems like you are out to disprove something, what is it that you really take issue with?
 
Frank Apasia said:
Fact is, after agreeing with Cephus, I realized I did not agree in whole with the way he said what he said...and I added the qualifications I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
OK, no worries.You wrote:
..it appears we truly cannot KNOW anything with any degree of absolute certainty.
Rather than me guess (and get it wrong, or be accused of ill will, etc.)
Either state :
we can know with certainty
we cannot know with certainty
Or acknowledge you don't want to make either claim at this time, but "lean towards one", etc.

To me that's the only way that makes sense, FWIW.
I do recognize the inherent contradiction of, "We cannot know anything about reality with certainty." Sorta like the "Reality is subjective" assertion.
Click to expand...
Indeed, someone else pointed it out to me too, I didn't discover it...but now that I understand it I see it everywhere.
So it's false right? I think some of the other posts are taking it head-on, we may see justification come out in some of the other posts if I can manage.

***At 80, I am so long out of school, the more rigorous philosophy has left me. It still is the most interesting subject of all, so I want to participate, but often I have to do so with knowing my serious limitations. I can make meaningful observations...and often can stimulate a line of discussion even with the limitations, so I do enter where some might think I would be wise to fear to tread.
Click to expand...
You can and should do that, maybe it's just the way its done doesn't communicate that.
In the economics forum many of us are not well versed in economics, but we can contribute, learn, challenge, etc.. I think perhaps as long as you acknowledge up front that you aren't sure either way, you're just testing it out...that puts the gloves on, it keeps it exploratory...tensions should diminish. But if you tell someone they are wrong, and can't back it up...that's infuriating (or the reverse, claim being right despite reasons...and not defending it). Just my 2 cents for what it's worth. If you tell them you are intentionally playing devil's advocate, that's OK too right? Take the contrary position without acknowledging you actually believe it...at least they know that up front.
 
OrphanSlug said:
From your posts it seems like you are out to disprove something, what is it that you really take issue with?
Click to expand...
The OP title right? Is Skepticism [a tenable position].
 
Mach said:
The OP title right? Is Skepticism [a tenable position].
Click to expand...

I consider that it is. If philosophy was restricted only to the conclusion from a question then perhaps not, but that seem intentionally excluding of possibilities.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure how anyone gets past the problem with "justified" being anything other than subjective. I cannot think of anyway to make "justified" objective...which would give some credence to "justified belief."Without that (and we are "without that")..."justified belief" is about as useless a philosophical concept as Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager.
Click to expand...

That's right. It just hides the issue in justification. JTB has the same problem as skepticism ultimately, it's a flawed definition for similar reasons.

Yes, Occam's Razor isn't a fundamental rule of a good system, it's a heuristics tool that helps. It's quite useful, and used throughout science, but it's not magic or the only heuristics, and it can and does lead to bad choices.
 
Mach said:
OK, no worries.You wrote:
..it appears we truly cannot KNOW anything with any degree of absolute certainty.
Rather than me guess (and get it wrong, or be accused of ill will, etc.)
Either state :
we can know with certainty
we cannot know with certainty
Or acknowledge you don't want to make either claim at this time, but "lean towards one", etc.

To me that's the only way that makes sense, FWIW.

Indeed, someone else pointed it out to me too, I didn't discover it...but now that I understand it I see it everywhere.
So it's false right? I think some of the other posts are taking it head-on, we may see justification come out in some of the other posts if I can manage.
Click to expand...

We end up in a loop on this question.

On the one hand, I want to say "I (not we) cannot KNOW anything with any degree of certainty"...although I see the inherent contradiction. I can modify it to "I cannot KNOW anything except this one thing with any degree of certainty"...but that is gratuitousness on a cosmic scale.

So I cloud my comment on it with the qualifications, "It seems..." (Doesn't actually work.)

My original comment probably was most to acknowledge that I finally had something Cephus said with which I could agree.

I honestly cannot KNOW for sure anything about REALITY, because I cannot answer the question, "Is what I consider REALITY actually REALITY...or is it some kind of illusion that the mind I am using manufactured for me?"

I'm not being evasive. I'm just saying that I don't know the answer...and I am reluctant to universalize that lack of ability.

You can and should do that, maybe it's just the way its done doesn't communicate that.
In the economics forum many of us are not well versed in economics, but we can contribute, learn, challenge, etc.. I think perhaps as long as you acknowledge up front that you aren't sure either way, you're just testing it out...that puts the gloves on, it keeps it exploratory...tensions should diminish. But if you tell someone they are wrong, and can't back it up...that's infuriating (or the reverse, claim being right despite reasons...and not defending it). Just my 2 cents for what it's worth. If you tell them you are intentionally playing devil's advocate, that's OK too right? Take the contrary position without acknowledging you actually believe it...at least they know that up front.
Click to expand...

I'll keep a closer eye on myself. We'll see where that leads.
 
I think it is pretty close to true. I don't think we can know anything with 100% certainty, other than maybe "thought happens".

But I also don't think it is a practical way to live. I mean, I can tell my wife I was ignoring her because I can't be absolutely certain she is real, but I will suffer as a result. I find scientific skepticism to be the perfect balance of applied skepticism and practicality.
 
Mach said:
A clear sign that they do not understand something, and have not adequately explained it.
I wonder if people with bigger brains are attracted to more credible and useful fields (physics, medicine, chemistry, etc.), and philosophy gets the dreamers who are content to make up something, publish it, then just teach (and never follow up on research, make it consistent, etc.)
Click to expand...

Most so called philosophers just repeat what some other so called philosopher has said. And when you dispute the claim, they just point at what that famous philosopher said as if it is written in stone. They completely ignore the different schools of thought and science in general. A lot of them are no different than theists or new agers.
 
BrewerBob said:
I think it is pretty close to true. I don't think we can know anything with 100% certainty, other than maybe "thought happens".

But I also don't think it is a practical way to live. I mean, I can tell my wife I was ignoring her because I can't be absolutely certain she is real, but I will suffer as a result. I find scientific skepticism to be the perfect balance of applied skepticism and practicality.
Click to expand...

You can't even know that. Thought could be nothing more than an incredibly complex computer program. You could be programed to think that everything that you're thinking is thinking. How could you ever know?

But of course, as you point out, that's not a worthwhile way to live. We have to take the evidence that we have, knowing that said knowledge is incomplete and possibly flawed, and make the best of it that we can. We don't know for sure that any of it is actually so, but it allows us to continue so that's the best we can do.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure how anyone gets past the problem with "justified" being anything other than subjective. I cannot think of anyway to make "justified" objective...which would give some credence to "justified belief."

Without that (and we are "without that")..."justified belief" is about as useless a philosophical concept as Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager.
Click to expand...

"Justified belief" is subjective. "True" is objective.

As i said (in other words), we are limited by our subjectivity- we cannot distinguish "justified belief" from "justified true belief" because we do not have direct access to objective reality. We only have access to what we perceive to be reality through the subjectivity of the lens of our own minds.
 
Mach said:
A clear sign that they do not understand something, and have not adequately explained it.
I wonder if people with bigger brains are attracted to more credible and useful fields (physics, medicine, chemistry, etc.), and philosophy gets the dreamers who are content to make up something, publishe it, then just teach (and never follow up on research, make it consistent, etc.)
Click to expand...

I don't think you are in a position to declare that philosophers don't understand epistemology, but somehow you do and yet you cannot be bothered to explain it.

I can assure you that my brain is plenty large and the foundation of epistemology is thoroughly vetted by brains larger than my own.
 
Absentglare said:
"Justified belief" is subjective. "True" is objective.

As i said (in other words), we are limited by our subjectivity- we cannot distinguish "justified belief" from "justified true belief" because we do not have direct access to objective reality. We only have access to what we perceive to be reality through the subjectivity of the lens of our own minds.
Click to expand...

Adding the word "true" to "justified belief" makes about as much sense to me as adding "true" to "blind guess."

"Justified true belief" is every bit as subjective a notion as is "justified belief."

I think we are in agreement on this. Am I correct?
 
Mr Person said:
Response: True but useless other than for approving of inquisitiveness in general.



Truth: The only evidence of an existing world outside your mind comes from the sense impressions generated by your sense organs (eyes, etc). In fact, the only evidence of the existence of your sense organs comes from those sense impressions. Everything about reality, including the existence of any reality outside your consciousness, is therefore uncertain.

Uselessness: No matter how hard you believe this - I challenge you - you cannot cause the evidence of an outside reality to disappear or prevent it from affecting you. Go believe it whilst sitting on a highway and see what happens...

In short, it's possible that all of reality can be in YOUR head, but even a complete belief in the possibility as truth would accomplish nothing. It is therefore useless.

Hence, apart from using philosophy as a way from studying the shape of thought and methods of argument, it is only useful to explore physical reality when consistent with proven laws of physics. Otherwise, it may shed light on aesthetics, ethics, and the wisdom of using a physically possible - though technologically impossible at the moment - creation such as a teleporter.*



See: the philosophy of personal identity, specifically, The Zombie Problem, The Teleporter Problem, and related thought problems with the use of a device that would deconstruct at one point and reconstruct another, all portions of a person that are objectively real/provable, down to the spin state of quarks, etc. (Query: intersection of the observation problem with deconstruction/reconstruction, with regard to quantum phenomenae)
Click to expand...




Mach said:
Including the above, which you are uncertain about. But you seem to claim it's "Truth"? It cannot be both, I'll leave you to resolve that contradiction and explain which was correct (?)

You can't be certain of that, so why propose it?

I'm writing that "we can be certain and uncertain" is consistent with most everything we are likely to discuss (and the rest wll be consistent only after a lot of back and forth).
"we cannot be certain" is inconsistent WITH ITSELF (we are certain that we cannot be certain...contradiction)

It's a contradictory premise and should be discarded as useless up front. You at least agree its useless, just for a slightly different reason :)
Click to expand...

Um, no it is not a "contradictory premise".

What?
 
Sorry if anyone already covered this, I skipped a few pages, but Descartes took care of this with "I think therefor I am."

You have to exist in order to at the very least pose the question, at least your consciousness does; You can know at least that much.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Adding the word "true" to "justified belief" makes about as much sense to me as adding "true" to "blind guess."

"Justified true belief" is every bit as subjective a notion as is "justified belief."

I think we are in agreement on this. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

The goal is to define what we mean when we talk about what we know.

When i claim to have knowledge of some thing, i generally cannot absolutely determine the truth of my claim no matter how justified i may consider my belief to be. That is because the objective truth is independent of my subjective opinion on how justified the belief is.

This is why i say that we do seem to know things, but we cannot be sure that we actually know what we believe we know. In all likelihood, an overwhelming number of our justified beliefs are ultimately false.
 
Lachean said:
Sorry if anyone already covered this, I skipped a few pages, but Descartes took care of this with "I think therefor I am."

You have to exist in order to at the very least pose the question, at least your consciousness does; You can know at least that much.
Click to expand...

This is the single thing that i truly know that i know. I must exist. Nothing else can be known with absolute certainty. Other things can be known, but only with degrees of certainty.
 
Absentglare said:
This is the single thing that i truly know that i know. I must exist. Nothing else can be known with absolute certainty. Other things can be known, but only with degrees of certainty.
Click to expand...

I feel like these guys nailed it:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom