how can there be knowledge if our knowledge claims must always be
subject to skeptism? is there no way out?
Skepticism is only possible if there is certainty.
"how can there be knowledge if our knowledge claims must always be
subject to skeptism? is there no way out?
There have been a variety of attempts to disarm the problems generated by Skepticism, such as Modest Foundationalism, Externalism, Plantingian Proper Functionalism, et cetera. These attempt to redefine, clarify, or weaken the rigidity of the criteria for knoweldge. Root through those for a few options on how to develop a solution to the question of Skepticism.
“Skepticism is only possible if there is certainty.”
May I ask what this is supposed to mean? It doesn’t seem to be very clear what’s being said.
You can’t disagree with someone except in the overall context of agreement.
Same idea.
Skeptics say that there is no certainty. So I don’t really know what is being said here. Is there certainty, and that’s why there is skepticism? Does certainty not exist? Or…Uhh. Gah. Fcuk it.
It’s because of uncertainty that skepticism exists. If we were certain, then there would be no reason to question (which is what a skeptic does).
This reminds me of the statement, “All statements are false.” Is this a true statement? If it is a true statement then that would make it a false statement. If it is false then that would make at least one statement true (not this one).
So to answer the first guy’s question (which I neglected to do),
[quote=valkyboy]
how can there be knowledge if our knowledge claims must always be subject to skepticism? is there no way out?
[quote]
The only way out is through absolute certainty. I don’t know if this is possible. Either that or form a theory (or whatever it is that you may be forming) that is foolproof logically. Something that makes perfect sense through which no one can find holes. (Suggested reading God’s Debris by Scott Adams)
Oh, there’s one more way. We can ignore the skeptics.
As I understand them, skeptics say there is no knowledge (or, more accurately, that knowledge is impossible.) But, whether they claim there is no certainty is another matter.
To be certain about something is to claim that it is impossible that you are mistaken.
To know something is to claim only that you are not mistaken.
So the claim to know is weaker than, and does not imply, a claim to be certain.
It may be (and it was true in the case of Descartes) that knowledge and certainty were identified. Hume tried to distinguish between the two in his remarks on “academic skepticism”, and, finally, Peirce made the distinction in terms of his fallibilism.
But, many skeptics attack certainty and think that they are attacking knowledge. I think that is a bad mistake to confuse knowledge with certainty.
but one would need certainty to assert that the ‘knowledge’ is a truth…
if something is not certain/true woud it be worth knowing? perhaps. but yet…
You ought to look at the topic “knowledge and the possibility of error” on this board, where much the same topic is being discussed.
“but one would need certainty to assert that the ‘knowledge’ is a truth…
if something is not certain/true woud it be worth knowing? perhaps. but yet…”
I don’t see why you say that. Why can’t I assert that I know that Paris is the capital of France without certainty?
But I think there are two things that need to be made clear.
- The difference betweenfeeling certain or sure, and actually being certain. We often feel certain when we are not actually certain. What is the difference? Well, when you arecertain, if you ever are, then it is impossible that you should be mistaken about what you are certain of. In other words, you are infallible about that thing. (Now I don’t think that any of us is infallible about anything. It is always possible that we are mistaken about anything we believe.) But when you feelcertain you feel you are infallible about something, that you could not possibly me wrong. (But, people havefelt certain about many things, for instance that the Earth was flat, and they turned out not to be certain, but only to have felt certain. Now, maybe, if you are well brought up, you should not assert you know something unless you feelcertain you are right. But, remember, feeling certain is not at all the same as beingcertain-actual certainty. So, although even if you are right and you should not assert you know unless you feelcertain you do know, that doesn’t mean that you actually are certain. So, there is still a difference between knowing and beingcertain, even if to assert you know you have to feelcertain
The second thing I want to say is that, in any case, there is a difference between asserting that you know and knowing. You can know something without actually asserting that you know that thing. I am sure you know things but don’t assert them unless you have reason for doing it. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but this is the first time I have asserted (actually written) that for a long time.
So, even if certainty were required for asserting that you know something, it isn’t required for actually knowing that thing. Knowing is one thing; saying you know is another thing; and what is needed to say you know need not be needed to know that thing.
I hope that something can be known, and yet I not be certain of it, since I believe I know a lot of things, but I am not certain of any of them (Remember, it is not that I don’t feelcertain of them, it is that I am not certain of them, because although I feel sure they are true, and that I [i]am not mistaken about them, so I know them, nevertheless, I believe that it is possible[i] that I am mistaken about them, so I am not certain they are true.
I hope this clears it up.