Philosophical Skepticism

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe Philosophical Skepticism first arose mainly in opposition to the ideological Philosophical Realism [absolutely mind-independent reality] driven from an evolutionary default.
The various branching from the above are subsets of the above.

Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2]
It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense.

Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories:

• Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. In the latter sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, to knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world.

Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

I believe Philosophical Skepticism is a very useful tool of Philosophy-proper.

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge.

I believe philosophical skeptics do not directly claim to know that there is no knowledge, but rather push the onus to philosophical realists and other similar positive claimants to prove their positive claim.

Where philosophical skeptics justify their position, that is based on their discretions and not as a fundamental responsibility.

Here is one response to the Critics of Philosophical Skepticism from ChatGpt [with reservations]:

One of the criticism of Philosophical Skepticism is:
"Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

How do philosophical skeptics counter the above?

ChatGPT [with reservations]:
The criticism that philosophical skepticism is self-refuting because it seems to claim knowledge about the absence of knowledge is a common objection. Philosophical skeptics are aware of this criticism and offer responses to address it. Here are some ways in which philosophical skeptics counter this objection:

Distinction between Types of Knowledge: Skeptics often make a distinction between different types of knowledge. They argue that they are not claiming knowledge in the sense of absolute, certain, or infallible knowledge. Instead, they are expressing doubts or reservations about claims to such knowledge. Skeptics may argue that their position is more about epistemic humility and recognizing the limitations of human cognition rather than claiming to know that knowledge is impossible.

Methodological Skepticism: Some skeptics adopt a form of methodological skepticism, which is a stance taken for the sake of inquiry rather than a dogmatic assertion. They suspend judgment and critically examine beliefs and claims to knowledge without necessarily asserting that knowledge is impossible. This approach allows skeptics to engage in intellectual exploration without making absolute claims about the unattainability of knowledge.

Agrippa's Trilemma: Some skeptics appeal to Agrippa's trilemma, a form of Pyrrhonian skepticism, which argues that any attempt to justify knowledge claims leads to an infinite regress, circular reasoning, or reliance on unsupported premises. Skeptics use this trilemma to highlight the difficulties in providing a solid foundation for knowledge claims, rather than definitively asserting the impossibility of knowledge.

Conditional or Contextual Claims: Skeptics may frame their position as conditional or contextual. They might say something like, "Given the limitations of human cognition and the potential for error, we should be skeptical of claims to certain knowledge." In this way, they are not making an absolute claim but offering a heuristic or a cautionary approach to knowledge.

Skepticism as a Tool: Some skeptics argue that skepticism is not a fixed position but a tool for critical thinking. It is a way to challenge assumptions, encourage rigorous examination of beliefs, and promote intellectual honesty. From this perspective, skepticism is not about claiming to know that knowledge is impossible but about promoting intellectual rigor.

In summary, philosophical skeptics counter the criticism of self-refutation by clarifying that their position is often about doubt, humility, or a methodological approach to inquiry rather than a definitive claim of knowledge about the impossibility of knowledge. They argue that their skepticism serves as a valuable tool for critical thinking and intellectual exploration rather than a dogmatic assertion.

As I had mentioned, Philosophical Skepticism is a useful Philosophical Tool.

[Iwannaplato]

Notes:

Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge.

I believe philosophical skeptics do not directly claim to know that there is no knowledge, but rather push the onus to philosophical realists and other similar positive claimants to prove their positive claim.

Where philosophical skeptics justify their position, that is based on their discretions and not as a fundamental responsibility.

As per his quote about skepticism it is not aimed at realism, it is aimed at any assertions and anyone asserting claims to knowledge. So, it would be aimed at objective moral claims, for example. And if one cruises through the millions (oh, sorry, hyperbole) of threads VA has started he makes positive claimes all over the place.

He can't now make it seem like skepticism is on his side. First, because it would also be aimed at all his claims. But then further he is not merely skeptical, he claims to know that realism is wrong, for example that there is no mind-independant reality. That's a postive counterclaim.

[Skepdick]

As per his quote about skepticism it is not aimed at realism, it is aimed at any assertions and anyone asserting claims to knowledge.

Eh? Contradiction.

If one holds the a priori assumption (a dogma) about the impossibility of knowledge, then how do you know about reality's mind independent existence?

What is adequate evidence for that?

But then further he is not merely skeptical, he claims to know that realism is wrong, for example that there is no mind-independant reality. That's a postive counterclaim.

It's not a positive counter-claim. It's a proof of self-contradiction of the skeptic+realist claim.

It's not saying what is true.
It's saying what is definitely false.

Of if you want to invoke Excluded middle. It's true that skepticism+realism is NOT true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote:

• "I believe Philosophical Skepticism first arose mainly in opposition to the ideological Philosophical Realism [absolutely mind-independent reality] driven from an evolutionary default.
  The various branching [against other forms of realism, etc.] from the above [main reason for philosophical skepticism] are subsets of the above."

I also wrote:

• "I believe philosophical skeptics do not directly claim to know that there is no knowledge, but rather push the onus to philosophical realists and other similar positive claimants to prove their positive claim.
  
  Where philosophical skeptics justify their position, that is based on their discretions and not as a fundamental responsibility."

[Skepdick]

Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories:

• Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

Discuss?? Views??

I reject the two categories as being simply complementary of each other. They are the exact same philosopher from beginning to end.

Philosophical skeptic denies the possibility of all knowledge.
Philosophical skeptic fails to understand how science works in proving oneself wrong.
Philosophical skeptic is thus claiming to know that knowledge is impossible.
Philosophical skeptic lives in contradiction all their life until the chickens come home to roost.
Philosophical skeptic realizes self-contradiction (hopefully sooner rather than later)
Philosopher recognizes the faulty pre-supposition and all the counter-evidence as proof for the possibility of knowledge.

Of course, you also get the other pathology where judgment is suspended indefinitely because the phrase "inadequacy of evidence" presupposes knowledge of what "adequacy" is supposed to be like.

What's evidence for knowledge?

So tell us skeptics, what is it that you know exactly? Do you know that knowledge is impossible; or do you know what the adequacy criteria for attaining it are?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1]
Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things; the doctrine held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers, that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability.[2]

The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[3]

According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bare no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy

[Skepdick]

"Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1]
Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things; the doctrine held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers, that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability.[2]

The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[3]

According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bare no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy

Uhuh, so on a scale of certainties and probabilities; how uncertain are you; and how improbable is it that you are right here right now making this post?

If your self-perception bears no conformity to the self-perception you are perceiving then - what are you perceiving?

All forms of skepticism about truth and knowledge amount to self-denial in the limit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1]
Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things; the doctrine held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers, that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability.[2]

The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[3]

According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bare no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy

Uhuh, so on a scale of certainties and probabilities; how uncertain are you; and how improbable is it that you are right here right now making this post?

If your self-perception bears no conformity to the self-perception you are perceiving then - what are you perceiving?

Skepticism amounts to self-denial in the limit.

I quoted " " the above from WIKI, it is not MY post.
I am not a full-fledge philosophical skeptic.

My point with philosophical skepticism;

"I believe philosophical skeptics do not directly claim to know that there is no knowledge, but rather push the onus to philosophical realists and other similar positive claimants to prove their positive claim.

Where philosophical skeptics justify their position, that is based on their discretions and not as a fundamental responsibility."

[Skepdick]

"I believe philosophical skeptics do not directly claim to know that there is no knowledge, but rather push the onus to philosophical realists and other similar positive claimants to prove their positive claim.

Where philosophical skeptics justify their position, that is based on their discretions and not as a fundamental responsibility."

Burden tennis is not philosophy. It's burden tennis.

Mean while, we have the science of proof theory.

Does the internal language (the philosophy) survive implosion? If no - discard theory.
Does the external language (the science) survive empirical evidence? if no - discard theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one response to the Critics of Philosophical Skepticism from ChatGpt [with reservations]:

One of the criticism of Philosophical Skepticism is:
"Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

How do philosophical skeptics counter the above?

ChatGPT [with reservations]:
The criticism that philosophical skepticism is self-refuting because it seems to claim knowledge about the absence of knowledge is a common objection. Philosophical skeptics are aware of this criticism and offer responses to address it. Here are some ways in which philosophical skeptics counter this objection:

Distinction between Types of Knowledge: Skeptics often make a distinction between different types of knowledge. They argue that they are not claiming knowledge in the sense of absolute, certain, or infallible knowledge. Instead, they are expressing doubts or reservations about claims to such knowledge. Skeptics may argue that their position is more about epistemic humility and recognizing the limitations of human cognition rather than claiming to know that knowledge is impossible.

Methodological Skepticism: Some skeptics adopt a form of methodological skepticism, which is a stance taken for the sake of inquiry rather than a dogmatic assertion. They suspend judgment and critically examine beliefs and claims to knowledge without necessarily asserting that knowledge is impossible. This approach allows skeptics to engage in intellectual exploration without making absolute claims about the unattainability of knowledge.

Agrippa's Trilemma: Some skeptics appeal to Agrippa's trilemma, a form of Pyrrhonian skepticism, which argues that any attempt to justify knowledge claims leads to an infinite regress, circular reasoning, or reliance on unsupported premises. Skeptics use this trilemma to highlight the difficulties in providing a solid foundation for knowledge claims, rather than definitively asserting the impossibility of knowledge.

Conditional or Contextual Claims: Skeptics may frame their position as conditional or contextual. They might say something like, "Given the limitations of human cognition and the potential for error, we should be skeptical of claims to certain knowledge." In this way, they are not making an absolute claim but offering a heuristic or a cautionary approach to knowledge.

Skepticism as a Tool: Some skeptics argue that skepticism is not a fixed position but a tool for critical thinking. It is a way to challenge assumptions, encourage rigorous examination of beliefs, and promote intellectual honesty. From this perspective, skepticism is not about claiming to know that knowledge is impossible but about promoting intellectual rigor.

In summary, philosophical skeptics counter the criticism of self-refutation by clarifying that their position is often about doubt, humility, or a methodological approach to inquiry rather than a definitive claim of knowledge about the impossibility of knowledge. They argue that their skepticism serves as a valuable tool for critical thinking and intellectual exploration rather than a dogmatic assertion.

As I had mentioned, Philosophical Skepticism is a useful Philosophical Tool.