Should we be skeptical of our
knowledge?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will be arguing that we should not be sceptical of our knowledge by
considering the empiricist response such as Locke and Russel and also most crucially considering how
we should be defining knowledge as the reliabilist definition and how this most notably shows we should
not be sceptical of our knowledge. There are two key issues, proving that our current justification is
credible (mainly showed via the empiricist) and secondly considering what the sceptics actually mean by
justification - as showed by the reliabalist response.
RICE 1:
R: Russell’s response. Although we understand sceptical arguments such as the brain in the vat, there is
no reason to actually believe them. It is simply just common sense and more rational that the external
world exists. The consistency of everyone with thousand different kinds of sense data which still agree
which each other leads us to believe that there is a real world. We have no genuine reason to believe that
we are a brain in a vat - the existence of physical objects is the best explanation for our sense experience.
I: Okay but is the existence of physical objects really the best explanation for our sense experience. If we
are brain in vats then our sense experience would be exactly as it is now: involuntary coherent, systematic
which are the very justifications used for the proof of the External World. And therefore our experience
provides no reason to prefer the hypothesis of physical objects over the hypothesis of being a brain in a
vat as both explanation of our experience are equally good. And so we can’t completely rule it out.
C: We could say that the existence of the real world is an instinctive belief and that it is simply common
sense, whilst via experience there may be little reason common sense and instinct seems to indicate there
is a physical world.
E: To be honest it is quite a weak response, whilst it is true that the existence of the real world is much
more metaphysically lighter and instinctive it doesn't really rule scepticism out and is still a possibility.
RICE 2:
R: Locke’s Response. There are only three types of knowledge: a priori, a posteriori and knowledge of our
own minds derived from impressions of reflection (what we are immediately and directly aware of from
our experience of our mind including emotions). Therefore any claims that do not fall under these
categories we do not know and so things such as God and morality which do not fit these kinds we can
challenge. And therefore we can have local scepticism. However regarding Global scepticism it attacks
knowledge from sense experience. If we assume indirect realism to be the case, we only immediately
perceive sense data but from mind-independent objects. The external world of physical objects is the
cause of our sense as it is the best explanation of our experiences due to the fact it is involuntary, our
different sense cohere etc.
I: The existence of the external world remains a hypothesis we cannot know with certainty that physical
objects exists and therefore we cannot be sure that physical objects are the cause of our perceptions and
that our justification for knowledge is inadequate and we don’t know for certain that it came from physical
objects
C: The sceptic sets the standard for knowledge too high, knowledge does not require certainty If the
existence of physical objects is the best explanation of our sense experience, this is sufficient justification
for us to now that they exist - we dont have to be CERTAIN.
E: This is good because it rejects the claim of scepticism need for certainty and so is much more
convincing by showing how the initial stance is unconvincing and the standards set are too high
Should we be skeptical of our knowledge? 1
knowledge?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will be arguing that we should not be sceptical of our knowledge by
considering the empiricist response such as Locke and Russel and also most crucially considering how
we should be defining knowledge as the reliabilist definition and how this most notably shows we should
not be sceptical of our knowledge. There are two key issues, proving that our current justification is
credible (mainly showed via the empiricist) and secondly considering what the sceptics actually mean by
justification - as showed by the reliabalist response.
RICE 1:
R: Russell’s response. Although we understand sceptical arguments such as the brain in the vat, there is
no reason to actually believe them. It is simply just common sense and more rational that the external
world exists. The consistency of everyone with thousand different kinds of sense data which still agree
which each other leads us to believe that there is a real world. We have no genuine reason to believe that
we are a brain in a vat - the existence of physical objects is the best explanation for our sense experience.
I: Okay but is the existence of physical objects really the best explanation for our sense experience. If we
are brain in vats then our sense experience would be exactly as it is now: involuntary coherent, systematic
which are the very justifications used for the proof of the External World. And therefore our experience
provides no reason to prefer the hypothesis of physical objects over the hypothesis of being a brain in a
vat as both explanation of our experience are equally good. And so we can’t completely rule it out.
C: We could say that the existence of the real world is an instinctive belief and that it is simply common
sense, whilst via experience there may be little reason common sense and instinct seems to indicate there
is a physical world.
E: To be honest it is quite a weak response, whilst it is true that the existence of the real world is much
more metaphysically lighter and instinctive it doesn't really rule scepticism out and is still a possibility.
RICE 2:
R: Locke’s Response. There are only three types of knowledge: a priori, a posteriori and knowledge of our
own minds derived from impressions of reflection (what we are immediately and directly aware of from
our experience of our mind including emotions). Therefore any claims that do not fall under these
categories we do not know and so things such as God and morality which do not fit these kinds we can
challenge. And therefore we can have local scepticism. However regarding Global scepticism it attacks
knowledge from sense experience. If we assume indirect realism to be the case, we only immediately
perceive sense data but from mind-independent objects. The external world of physical objects is the
cause of our sense as it is the best explanation of our experiences due to the fact it is involuntary, our
different sense cohere etc.
I: The existence of the external world remains a hypothesis we cannot know with certainty that physical
objects exists and therefore we cannot be sure that physical objects are the cause of our perceptions and
that our justification for knowledge is inadequate and we don’t know for certain that it came from physical
objects
C: The sceptic sets the standard for knowledge too high, knowledge does not require certainty If the
existence of physical objects is the best explanation of our sense experience, this is sufficient justification
for us to now that they exist - we dont have to be CERTAIN.
E: This is good because it rejects the claim of scepticism need for certainty and so is much more
convincing by showing how the initial stance is unconvincing and the standards set are too high
Should we be skeptical of our knowledge? 1
