I believe that this view is correct because I believe that
everything we know can be questioned and it could all change
from one moment to the next. This can be backed up by using
posteriori knowledge. This is any knowledge which is dependent
on sense experience. Using this concept, I can argue that what we
know can be questioned as our sense experience has limitations
meaning we never truly know the truth. Some could argue that
this is incorrect because there is priori knowledge which doesn’t
depend on sense experience. Although this is factual, priori
knowledge also has its limitations as it is simply a concept which
we made up, meaning that it is debatable.
One common argument is that we can’t debate certain things like
colours or what a cube looks like. This is implausible as the way I
view something might be different from the way someone else
does. For example, the way I see the colour red, someone else
may see green. However, we wouldn’t necessarily know that we
see different colours because in schools we were taught to think a
certain way. This would further emphasize my point that there is
no knowledge which is unquestionable because we may all just
view things differently.
This could also be argued from a scientific point of view. For
example, science is always changing, and scientists are always
making new discoveries and adapting. It would be absurd to
assume that there is such knowledge which is completely certain
when even science itself is constantly changing. This could,
however, be seen as ambiguous because it could be argued that
although science can be questioned, that doesn't mean that there
aren’t other pieces of knowledge that we have which can’t be
questioned. I would say that this is an illogical statement to make
because if the world is constantly changing, then all the
everything we know can be questioned and it could all change
from one moment to the next. This can be backed up by using
posteriori knowledge. This is any knowledge which is dependent
on sense experience. Using this concept, I can argue that what we
know can be questioned as our sense experience has limitations
meaning we never truly know the truth. Some could argue that
this is incorrect because there is priori knowledge which doesn’t
depend on sense experience. Although this is factual, priori
knowledge also has its limitations as it is simply a concept which
we made up, meaning that it is debatable.
One common argument is that we can’t debate certain things like
colours or what a cube looks like. This is implausible as the way I
view something might be different from the way someone else
does. For example, the way I see the colour red, someone else
may see green. However, we wouldn’t necessarily know that we
see different colours because in schools we were taught to think a
certain way. This would further emphasize my point that there is
no knowledge which is unquestionable because we may all just
view things differently.
This could also be argued from a scientific point of view. For
example, science is always changing, and scientists are always
making new discoveries and adapting. It would be absurd to
assume that there is such knowledge which is completely certain
when even science itself is constantly changing. This could,
however, be seen as ambiguous because it could be argued that
although science can be questioned, that doesn't mean that there
aren’t other pieces of knowledge that we have which can’t be
questioned. I would say that this is an illogical statement to make
because if the world is constantly changing, then all the
