Fred Flintstonensis

I am reading "No Other Gods" by Phil Fernandes, (who lives just a few miles from me) and he has a section about the 'failure' of skepticism, which he has taken from Augustine. He does not articulate it very well, so I broke it down into 4 parts which retain the essence of his argument without his clumsy wording.

1. Skeptics claim to suspend judgement on all things.

2. Skeptics do not suspend judgement on their own skepticism (they dogmatically adhere to it)

3. Skeptics are rationally inconsistant

4. Ergo, skepticism fails, therefore true knowledge is possible.


He has a second 'proof' of the 'failure' of skepticism.

A. Skeptics claim to suspend judgement on all things.

B. Skeptics do not suspend judgement on things like eating, protecting themselves, etc (they do it instinctively and without question).

C. Skeptics are inconsistent on a practical level.

D. Ergo, skepticism fails, therefore true knowledge is possible

He thinks this is a 2 pronged, irrefutable attack. I think it is fallacious and silly. Any takers? I have my own ideas on the failure of both of these arguments at every point, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought.

Mageth

Well, I'm skeptical, and I disagree with 1) and A). I don't think it's true that skeptics must "suspend judgment on all things."

Autonemesis

Phil Fernandes is an idiot.

There, I refuted his silly argument.

Unless he wants to fall back to a "no true scotsman" fallacy and claim I am not a skeptic because I rendered a judgment. That might be amusing.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Infinity Lover

If I'm misinterpreting this let me know...

The first part suggest never being in doubt about whether it's a good idea to always second guess oneself.
This is case sensitive. You can be in doubt about whether there's proper cause to doubt oneself, so the 'never' doesn't apply.

The second suggest not second guessing basic needs and self preservation or reflexes.
This sounds like the inability to doubt whether something should be eaten or drunk, or to stop in one's tracks. Is that always the case?

You could also say a skeptic is in doubt about whether they truelly claim those things, and the whole thing just falls apart like a house of cards.

Am I anywhere near your conclusions?
How about a hint?

Vibr8gKiwi

Skeptics aren't skeptical as dogma, but because it works. If being skeptical somehow stopped working or something better came along, skeptics would change. Also notice that the examining nature of skepticism would lend itself to helping a skeptic find and embrace a better system if there was one.

Given that, I think it's not true that skeptics aren't skeptical of their skepticism, and his first argument simply fails outright.

MortalWombat

Nope, nice strawman, though. They suspend judgement on things until there is sufficient evidence of their existence.

Fred Flintstonensis

Please correct me if I am wrong. I will tell you why I think this argument falls on it's face.

It has the same problems as most of 'Dr' Phil's recycled 'proofs' of God: it is a non sequitur based on a false premise. This can be undeniably shown.


"1. Skeptics claim to suspend judgement on all things"

[note: Undemonstrated assertion #1, which means his argument crumbles as it is based on a false premise. He makes this assertion as if it is axiomic, which it is not. Furthermore, being a skeptic, I know that there are many things which do not need to be tested with skepticism. If someone tells me "the sky is blue", this is not an outrageous claim. Indeed my own observation is harmonious with that statement, therefore skepticism is not necessarily applicable (unless one is a solipsist). It is more parsimonious and reasonable just to agree. Now, if someone tells me that they just flew in from planet Venus and their arms sure are tired...]

"2. Skeptics do not suspend judgement on their own skepticism (they dogmatically adhere to it)"

[note: unproven assertion #2. Skeptics do not dogmatically adhere to it. We do not arbitrarily adhere to it either, as 'Dr' Fernandes later implies in his book and on his cable access program here in Bremerton, WA. We simply know that it is a far superior method of arriving at the truth of a thing than simply believing. How do you think Dr. Phil would respond to my telling him that I just flew in from Venus? Do you think he would be skeptical about my claim? I sure hope so. Everyone is skeptical and no one dogmatically adheres to skepticism. Skepticism is a very useful tool, nothing more. No one regards it as a religion. Points 1 and 2 fail... badly, I might add.]

"3. Skeptics are rationally inconsistant"

[note: no need to even comment on this one.]

"4. Ergo, skepticism fails, therefore true knowledge is possible"

[note: Does it logically follow that IF skepticism fails THEN true knowledge if possible? Of course not. This is a non sequitur of the worst sort: it is a non sequitur based upon a false premise. Furthermore, it was the skeptics who proved that the moon didn't cause lunacy, it was the skeptics who proved that the sun wasn't a burning coal which resides just above the clouds, so it seems that true knowledge is possible and skepticism leads the way. It is not too far-fetched to say that if skepticism fails, then true knowledge will never be possible.]

There really is no need to bore you by demolishing the 'practical proof' of the failure of skepticism, it fails for exactly the same reason. There only remains the question: why would Dr. Phil adhere to this obviously false notion? In the book, Phil says that since skeptics have been proven to be dogmatic, this means that everyone is dogmatic. Well isn't that convenient? He is trying to drag us down into the gutter of credulity with him. He goes from this to 'showing' that believing is a better way to truth than skepticism. He treats skepticism as if it means 'a static condition of arbitrary disbelief'.

Is he honest enough to abandon this idea, which he must know is false? Probably not. He is not good at presenting a better argument, he is only good at stirring up a bigger cloud of dust. His entire book (mentioned in the original post) is 206 pages of obfuscation.

Thanks for responding. Ya'll fellers shore are smart, I feel like I can really learn something here.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]</p>

Infinity Lover

...but you're not entirely SURE, right?

Choose certainties, and always keep your options open.

And being sure that you're not sure about someting, in it's own right, is also being sure of oneself. If we're not willing to doubt ourselves, we can't trust ourselves.

Truth isn't just knowing; it's knowing what you're not sure of.

Marcel

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Skeptical

False. Skeptics require empirical evidence for statements of fact. This is not "suspending judgement".

False. Skeptics know skepticism works _in practice_. Requiring evidence has a long history of discovering truth as well as revealing falsehood. This is prima facie evidence that it works.

since 1 and 2 both fail, this fails.

This is so silly I hardly know what to say. He obviously doen't have any idea what skepticism is. It does not deny knowledge is possible, only that one must have empirical evidence to claim knowledge.


It's still false. He seems to think that skepticism involves saying "we cannot know anything" which is plainly false. Skepticism says "we cannot know anything _without evidence_".

Oh good grief. We know we have to eat and we know if we don't protect ourselves we'll die. We have ample evidence so no skepticism is necessary.

These arguments are about as silly as anything I've seen in quite some time. I am continually amazed at the drivel that people get paid to write.

demrald

An important epistemic distinction which has not been made here is that between the schools of skepticism that developed following Socrates. Namely, Pyrrhonian skeptics, who (supposedly) rejected all beliefs, and Academic skeptics, who rejected dogmatism. Of course, Academic skepticism ended up developing into Stoicism, but that's another matter altogether.

I think most contemporary skeptics are of the Academic (or Humean) persuasion, though some Pyrrhonians exist, mostly in the form of contemporary Berkeleyan idealists, minus God.

If any of this makes sense to you, you read far too much and should get a life!

Oh, yeah: the point of this post is that "skeptic" can refer to a variety of people with different views, so the argument of the OP is a strawman (as others here have said).

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]</p>