Traditional skepticism is about the external world’s existence and questions our capacity to gain knowledge about it through perception (Stratman, 2021). If one has reason to doubt a claim, then they do not have certainty in its accuracy; therefore, knowledge is not a guiding belief for behavior, and humans can only perceive the external world through their senses. People develop Perceptual beliefs from sensory experiences like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Certain perpetual beliefs about the external world include thinking there is a table in the room based on seeing and feeling it (Descartes, 2020). Another instance is when you think it is raining outside your residence due to the noise of the rain falling. However, beliefs concerning non-physical realities can also exist; for example, belief in mathematical truths such as 2+2=4. Another instance could be a conviction in moral standards, such as the importance of honesty instead of lying because it is morally incorrect.
What is Methodological (Cartesian) Skepticism about the external world?
Methodological skepticism is a form of doubt linked to Rene Descartes’ methods and writings. This is a systematic approach to challenging one’s belief systems, creating a respected philosophical method (Descartes, 2020). The fundamental belief of Cartesian doubt is that people cannot acquire knowledge about the external world (Stratman, 2021). Knowing does not necessarily determine one’s actions; therefore, if an individual finds a reason to disagree with a specific statement, it is likely due to their lack of understanding of its accuracy. Humans are supposed to gain knowledge of the external world by using their senses. Descartes’ doubting method, which involves questioning the validity of his senses and everything else to discover unquestionable truths, forms the basis of methodological skepticism toward the external world (Descartes, 2020). The approach of methodological skepticism and traditional skepticism varies. Although traditional skepticism questions the trustworthiness of our senses in understanding the outside world, methodological skepticism takes it a step further by withholding opinion on all beliefs, including those regarding the external world, until they are proven with complete certainty through a methodical process of doubt.
The Concept of absolute certainty and practical uncertainty
Skeptics claim that knowledge requires complete or metaphysical certainty, which involves a firm belief in the truth of a statement with no room for uncertainty (Brice, 2022). Descartes exemplified this position with his cogito argument: “I am thinking, therefore I exist.” This assertion is based on the undeniable quality of self-consciousness and confirms the surety of an individual’s existence as a reasoning creature. In skepticism, complete certainty is considered the highest standard, with any lower confidence level seen as insufficient for true knowledge. On the other hand, people who are not skeptical support the idea of practical certainty, which provides a level of confidence that is not absolute but is still considered adequate for practical use. Practical certainty recognizes the restrictions of human understanding and adopts a more practical method of gaining knowledge (Bergont, 2023). Even though unforeseen cosmic events could prevent it, we generally believe the sun will rise tomorrow based on past observations and the consistency of natural laws. This practical certainty enables us to effectively plan our activities, make decisions, and navigate the world, even when absolute certainty is lacking.
When examining the fallibility of human perception and reasoning, the difference between absolute and practical certainty becomes clear. Skeptics claim that our sensory perceptions and mental functions can be fallible, preventing any knowledge derived from them from reaching a state of complete certainty (Brice, 2022). Their claim suggests that optical illusions, hallucinations, and cognitive biases demonstrate the innate unreliability of our mental faculties. Non-skeptics contend that even though perceptions and reasoning may not provide complete certainty, they can still produce dependable knowledge for practical use.
Explain how a skeptic may argue that we never have absolute certainty about any perceptual belief and thus never know any perceptual belief.
A skeptical person might contend that we can never be completely sure of any belief based on our perceptions due to the restrictions and weaknesses of human perception. Perceptual beliefs originate from sensory experiences like sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. The doubter may argue that due to the unreliability and susceptibility to biases, errors, and restrictions of our senses, we can never have full confidence in the accuracy or truth of our perceptual beliefs (Stratman, 2021). The skeptic could use an argument centered on perceptual illusions and hallucinations. These occurrences show that our perceptions can lead us to beliefs that do not align with the truth. For instance, optical illusions can create the perception of things that do not exist, whereas hallucinations can lead us to experience sensations without any external source. Because it is often challenging to differentiate between real perceptions and false experiences, a skeptic might claim that we do not have complete certainty about the accuracy of any belief based on perception.
Moreover, the skeptic may also point out the influence of cognitive biases and psychological factors on our perceptions. Research in psychology has demonstrated that expectations, emotions, cultural upbringing, and previous convictions can impact how we understand sensory data and develop perceptual beliefs (Descartes, 2020). These biases may cause us to see the world in ways that match our beliefs or wishes rather than as it is. Therefore, skeptics could claim that our perceptual beliefs may always be influenced by possible distortions and inaccuracies, which hinder our ability to attain complete certainty regarding them. Furthermore, the skeptic could bring up epistemological questions regarding the essence of perception. Because perception requires the mind to interpret sensory data, there will always be a disconnect between the raw sensory input and our conscious perception. This space creates chances for mistakes and misunderstandings, leading to uncertainty about the trustworthiness of our perceptual beliefs. The skeptic may argue that without a direct and infallible connection to the outside world, we can never have complete certainty in any perceptual belief.
Explain how a non-skeptic might argue that sometimes we know something about the external world.
Someone who is not skeptical could say that even though there are limitations and uncertainties in our perceptions and beliefs about the world around us, there are still times when we can confidently say we know something. Various theories of justification can back up this argument by offering frameworks for evaluating the reliability and validity of our beliefs. One potential method that a non-skeptic could adopt is foundationalism, which suggests that some beliefs can be validated without needing additional justification from other beliefs (Stratman, 2021). Foundationalism posits that fundamental beliefs form the basis for constructing other beliefs. These fundamental beliefs are usually obvious to the individual or unquestionable and cannot be doubted reasonably because of their immediate clarity. For instance, the conviction that one is presently feeling pain or the conviction in the reality of one’s conscious perceptions could be seen as fundamental.
According to foundationalism, someone who is not a skeptic could claim that even though our beliefs about the external world based on perception may not always be completely reliable, there are specific foundational beliefs that we can be practically certain about (Stratman, 2021). These core principles offer a firm foundation for developing our other beliefs about the outside world, enabling us to effectively engage and navigate our surroundings. Moreover, a non-skeptic could rely on coherentism, which states that the rationale behind a belief is linked to how well it fits with other beliefs in a network or system of beliefs. Coherentism states that the coherence and consistency of our beliefs play a role in their overall justification. In this perspective, although individual perceptual beliefs may be uncertain or incorrect, their alignment with other beliefs and experiences can strengthen their justification.
Moreover, those who are not skeptics could highlight the practical side of understanding and validation. Pragmatism states that beliefs should be judged by their practical outcomes and usefulness rather than their truth or validity. From a practical point of view, a belief can be deemed justified if it results in successful results or enables efficient action in the world, even if it cannot be completely proven (Rinard, 2022). Regarding practical certainty, a non-skeptic could claim that although we do not have total certainty in all our beliefs, we can still have practical certainty by relying on the usefulness and reliability of our beliefs in guiding our actions and comprehension of the world (Bergont, 2023). Practical certainty recognizes the natural uncertainties in human understanding while highlighting the practical usefulness of beliefs in influencing practical choices and actions.
References
Bergont, S. (2023). Structure, targets, and issues of the Humean critique of causal reasoning. Reading Section 4 of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Archives de Philosophie, 86(3), 11-28.
Brice, R. G. (2022). Wittgenstein’s On Certainty: Insight and Method. Springer International Publishing.
Descartes, R. (2020). Descartes’ meditations on first philosophy. Lindhardt og Ringhof.
Rinard, S. (2022). Pragmatic skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 104(2), 434–453.
Stratman, C. (2021). Revisiting Moore’s Anti-Skeptical Argument in “Proof of an External World.” International journal for the study of skepticism, 11(4), 289–311.
write