Simply put, is knowlege infallible?
It seems to me as if we all know certain things. We all know that Socrates was a philosopher. We all know that when the sun rises that it’s dawn.
Sometimes however we encounter skeptical arguments in which nothing seems to satisfy the standard of evidence. I think everyone should agree that under intense and thorough philosophical skepticism or scrutiny that knowlege of almost anything can be thrown out because no matter what we think we know, we can’t have actually eliminated every possibility of error. Like I can’t say with 100% certainty that I’m not dreaming right now or under the influence of an evil deceiver.
My problem is that we know that we’re functioning within a system where taken far enough we end up with knowlege of nothing at all, which is countered by our belief that we certainly do know some things.
Do we have knowlege or what? When it is ok to ignore skeptical arguments? It seems like skeptics hold the view that knowlege must be infallible. If this is true then how can we know anything at all??
When you think of these things in terms of large institutions which have alot of control over society it becomes alot more interesting.
When do governments and religious organizations and scientists throw out skepticism?
Why/how should the different epistemological categories of science, religion, government or legal systems be defined?
How do you think they function now?
I understand that that’s a good functional explanation of what happens which leads to the sound I hear when I clap my hands. But I want to know how I’m supposed to defend the knowlege that I am in fact hearing it.
So you’re saying that I can’t know that I hear a sound when I clap my hands…because there are no facts in the cosmos? What the hell does that even mean? The cosmos? You’re telling me that when I clap my hands I don’t know that there’s going to be a clapping sound? Or that I can’t know that I’m hearing it as a result of my hands coming together?
Perhaps metaphysical delusions = reality? Maybe it becomes real by default if everything we precieve is not real. Those things still have a form and an order to them.
I do think that I have real knowlege that I hear a sound when I clap my hands. Whether or not the best possible explanation I can give of my knowlege of that fact passes the test of skepticism is another story.
So clap your own hand and hear for yourself. Then I’m gonna try and convince you that you don’t know that you just heard the sound of your hands clapping by pointing to uneliminated possibilities by which there remains general uncertainty about the foundations of all assertions.
The point of this thread really wasn’t to make this whole hand clapping example. Everyone knows the flaws of skepticism. My real concern was trying to get a general consensus as to what might be proper criteria for throwing it out in various contexts. Obviously in religion it goes out more quickly than in science, but eventually everyone becomes a system builder, even if they’re just defending skepticism. I wanna know where we draw the line.