Summary A* AQA A-Level Philosophy: Scepticism - Complete AO1 Notes, Essay Plans & AO2 Evaluation (with Weighting, Integration & Counterarguments)

If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/

Philosophical scepticism
-​ Philosophical scepticism attempts to make doubtful all propositions that we
believe to be knowable within a particular class of propositions.
-​ Philosophical scepticism can be defined as the position that our ordinary
methods of justification are inadequate to establish a knowledge claim so
that we cannot have any knowledge of the claim we are making.
-​ Philosophical scepticism can be local or global in its application.
-​ Examples of philosophical scepticism include: scepticism about knowledge of
the existence/nature of mind-independent ordinary objects (external world
scepticism), scepticism about knowledge of the existence/nature of other
minds (epistemological solipsism), scepticism about knowledge of past
events etc.
-​ Such scepticism is ordinarily motivated by the possibility of a
scenario/hypothesis which we cannot show to be false – a “sceptical
hypothesis”


The distinction between philosophical scepticism and normal incredulity
-​ Philosophical scepticism can be defined as the position that our ordinary
methods of justification are inadequate to establish a knowledge claim so
that we cannot have any knowledge of the claim we are making.
-​ Normal incredulity is doubt about commonplace everyday questions about
human life and the kinds of practical considerations that happen to matter in
that context

, -​ One difference between philosophical scepticism and normal incredulity is
that the latter is more sensitive to evidence. By definition, the sceptic can just
doubt the adequacy of any further evidence presented towards them.
Whereas, normal incredulity is very easily removed when evidence is
presented
-​ Therefore, another difference between philosophical scepticism and normal
incredulity is that the latter is more easily removed. To remove normal
incredulity you merely have to offer counter evidence. However, this is
insufficient to remove scepticism because each piece of evidence requires
itself evidence in an infinite regress
-​ Another difference between normal incredulity and philosophical scepticism
is that the former is local, whereas the latter can be global. Normal
incredulity is always local because it relies on specific, contextual reasons to
doubt a particular belief. Whereas, global philosophical scepticism casts
doubt on the possibility of all knowledge claims - epistemological doubt can
be extended without limit.
-​ One final difference between normal incredulity and philosophical scepticism
is that the former is practical whereas the latter is purely theoretical. Normal
incredulity arises in situations where we have a practical reason to doubt
something, such as questioning whether someone is telling the truth, and
the doubt matters because it affects what we should do. Philosophical
scepticism, by contrast, questions whether knowledge is possible at all,
regardless of whether there is any practical reason to doubt the claim.


The role of philosophical scepticism within epistemology
-​ Scepticism is used to test our knowledge claims to establish whether our
ordinary methods of justification are adequate to establish a knowledge
claim
-​ Thus it is a tool to establish certainty about which knowledge claims can be
relied upon.
-​ The skeptic can be understood as a hypothetical interlocutor who is used to
challenge epistemological claims. After making a claim about knowledge, we
can consider whether it can withstand the skeptic's objections and whether
we are able to successfully respond to them.

, -​ If our knowledge claims are easily doubted, then we can't be sure that we
can rely upon them
-​ If they survive our most rigorous testing (of doubt), we can be more certain
that we can trust them.
-​ Descartes, for example, relied upon scepticism as a crucial tool in his rational
foundationalism.
-​ He used scepticism to cast doubt over all his knowledge claims so that he
could start again with an absolute, self-evident foundational knowledge
claim, upon which pure reason could build to establish an indubitable system
of knowledge.
-​ Scepticism can also be used as a tool for distinguishing which types of belief
can be treated as known or not, thereby establishing which areas do not lead
to successful knowledge claims. In this way, philosophers exclude certain
regions of human enquiry as fruitless.
-​ In doing so, Hume, for example, argued that certain areas of enquiry, such as
traditional metaphysical questions, go beyond what human reason and
experience can justify. Therefore, he excluded these areas as fruitless or
meaningless forms of enquiry.


The distinction between local and global scepticism
-​ Local philosophical scepticism can be defined as the position that our
ordinary methods of justification are inadequate to establish a knowledge
claim within one particular area of knowledge so that we cannot have any
knowledge of the claims we are making within this one particular area of
knowledge.
-​ Global philosophical scepticism can be defined as the position that our
ordinary methods of justification are inadequate to establish a knowledge
claim within all areas of knowledge so that we cannot have any knowledge of
the claims we are making.
-​ Both local scepticism and global scepticism are examples of philosophical
scepticism (as opposed to normal incredulity).
-​ Local and global scepticism can be used to test knowledge claims and so
push us to justify our beliefs more rigorously, thus both have a
methodological function.