I'm going to be a little naughty and do a VA - post a convo I had with Chat GPT. The difference between what I'm doing and what VA is doing, however, is I'm not remotely using chat gpt as a source of *objective facts*, but instead as a jumping off point for your further research. I don't care how Chat GPT personally wants to treat the problem of radical skepticism, instead I'm using Chat GPT as a librarian, asking it to help me find other resources where I can find real answers. So, it's like VA's bullshit, but in an important way, it's also not:
Any philosopher, in my view, will eventually come head-to-head with the idea of radical skepticism -- that MAYBE all my experiences are giving me a completely false sense of reality. Is this topic talked about a lot in professional philosophy? What are the common or popular ways professional philosophers get over this problem, where they can begin to treat their experience as "real"?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, radical skepticism is a well-known and widely discussed issue in professional philosophy. Philosophers have been grappling with this problem for centuries, from ancient skepticism to modern epistemology. The challenge is exactly what you said: How can we trust that our experiences give us access to reality, rather than being illusions or fabrications (e.g., a brain-in-a-vat scenario)?
Here are some of the major approaches philosophers take to "get over" radical skepticism:
1. Fallibilism (Pragmatic Acceptance)
Some philosophers (like Charles Peirce and Hilary Putnam) argue that even if we can't prove our experiences reflect reality, we should accept them as such because they work. In other words, if treating the world as real allows us to make reliable predictions and function effectively, that’s good enough.
2. Externalism (We Don’t Need to “Prove” Reality)
Externalists (like Alvin Goldman and Hilary Putnam) argue that as long as our beliefs are caused in the right way—say, through a reliable causal connection to the external world—they count as knowledge. Even if we can’t rule out radical skepticism, it doesn’t matter because knowledge doesn’t require that kind of certainty.
3. Contextualism (Skepticism Only Matters in Certain Contexts)
Philosophers like David Lewis and Keith DeRose argue that skepticism only becomes a real issue when we deliberately raise it as a possibility. In everyday life, we don’t question reality, and that’s fine—context determines what counts as "knowing."
4. Moorean Common Sense (Just Deny the Skeptic)
G.E. Moore famously responded to skepticism by holding up his hands and saying, “Here is one hand, and here is another.” His argument? Some things are so obvious that they outweigh skeptical doubts. This “common sense” approach says we have more reason to trust our experiences than to doubt them.
5. Phenomenal Conservatism (If It Seems Real, Treat It as Such)
Some philosophers (like Michael Huemer) argue that unless we have a specific reason to doubt our experiences, we should take them at face value. If reality seems real, then we’re justified in believing it is.
6. Naturalized Epistemology (Science and Evolution Explain Why We Trust Reality)
Some philosophers (like W.V.O. Quine) argue that skepticism is irrelevant because human cognition evolved to track reality, at least roughly. Science itself presupposes reality and has worked well, so there’s no need for further justification.
7. Kantian Approach (Reality is Structured by Our Mind)
Kant would say we don’t even have access to “reality in itself,” but our minds impose a structure on experience. The world we perceive is "real" in the sense that it’s the only world we can perceive.
In short, professional philosophers take skepticism seriously, but most don’t let it paralyze them. They find ways to justify treating experience as reliable without needing absolute certainty. Do any of these approaches resonate with you?