Colour me Sceptical.
Those who read this Blog regularly probably see me, at least in [large?] part, as an Atheist. But my Atheism is only one aspect of a deeper philosophical position. I am at heart a Sceptic.
What this means is that I generally do not take things at their face value. I do not tend to hold entrenched beliefs about, well, anything really. I think of myself open to having my mind changed on any subject if someone can come up with facts or arguments that can convince me to change my position. This also means that I experience a great deal less pain when I am forced to abandon a ‘belief’ because I hold that all knowledge is at best provisional in the first place. I suppose that’s one reason why I consider myself to be a ‘scientist’ or at least to have a scientific mindset (not having scientific qualifications nor ever worked as a scientist).
As far as I am aware no truths are self evident. Indeed I’m not exactly sure if Truth is anything more than a concept or an aspiration. I think that we can work towards having knowledge about something but that any knowledge will be imperfect and open to being challenged. What people generally think of as Truth, hold onto as True and sometimes die for are basically beliefs about things rather than the truth about things. That being the case I contest that ideas (or Truths) are hardly worth dying for. I mean, what if you're wrong?
Of course some people say (or will say) that you can take scepticism too far and are indeed sceptical about a sceptical approach. This is a good thing. Having a basically sceptical attitude (even to having a sceptical attitude) is a healthy way to be. But is it possible to go too far though? Indeed, how far is too far where scepticism is concerned?
To show how far you can take things here’s an example: I got into a debate with some people recently about a strange sounding philosophical question: Do Other People Exist? The immediate response is – Well, of course they do! But then my scepticism kicked in and kept on going. At the end of an hour or so (I’m relentless when I get going) the other people looked at me in complete incredulity. They had started out with the belief that people as sceptical as I am could not actually exist. By the time we had partially exhausted the topic I had changed their minds. I had basically shown them that definite knowledge of other people’s existence was impossible. I went on to show that not only can we doubt that other people exist but that we can doubt that anything actually exists – including the three of us having the debate. I couldn’t help but be amused by their bemused looks. It appears that you can’t take scepticism too far after all.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
12 comments:
Man, I would have loved to have been there for that discussion! I heard or read a theory once (I can't remember which) that God created everything because he/she/it was alone in the universe and bored and that all of creation and reality is merely a fantasy created in the mind of that God trying to pass the time and not feel so alone. None of us or "this" is real, we're just God having countless conversations and fantasies out of boredom with him/her/it self.
It's a brilliant summary of what I myself aspire to. I don't think I have enough philosophy in me to argue questions like whether other people exist, but I'm in complete agreement with your general approach. And I think that's what science tries to instill in us, and we would all suffer much less if science succeeded!
An excellent post.
I relish those kinds of discussions. I think my family has wanted to kill me on more than one occasion for just such an exchange.
Nice post.
Very nice summary of the sceptical point of view. I've often thought of myself as a scientist when it comes to my way of looking at the world, but I think that the sceptic label may be more fitting (although over on this side of the pond I'd probably have to go with 'skeptic'). The scientific mindset aligns quite closely with the sceptical mindset, but calling yourself a 'scientist' carries an implication that you work as a scientist. Even though I was educated as a scientist I can't claim that as my occupation, so 'sceptic' might be a bit less confusing label.
"Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind." - Descartes
What you describe actually sounds more like philosophical scepticism than scientific scepticism.
Interestingly enough, even scientific scepticism is not something attributed to 'professional' scientists - "In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists."
V V said: Man, I would have loved to have been there for that discussion!
It was a *lot* of fun and it took place in an underground bar too - just for the atmosphere [grin]. I even impressed myself that I could debate such things with people who did that sort of thing for a living!
V V said: I heard or read a theory once (I can't remember which) that God created everything because he/she/it was alone in the universe and bored...
I've heard that one too. Maybe that's why people act so crazy - to keep God interested in us?
wunelle said: I don't think I have enough philosophy in me to argue questions like whether other people exist.
I bet you could. All it needs is a healthy dose of scepticism until you get to the bottom of things - which, of course, doesn't actually exist... [grin].
dbackdad said: I relish those kinds of discussions. I think my family has wanted to kill me on more than one occasion for just such an exchange.
No way I could talk to my family about that stuff. They think I'm crazy as it is. Fortunately I've had some friends with a philosophical bent but have had to go to Uni to get my 'fix' on a regular basis. Reading it is fun but debating it is *so* much better.
jeffy said: Even though I was educated as a scientist I can't claim that as my occupation, so 'sceptic' might be a bit less confusing label.
Indeed. I've had 'some' scientific training (in school) but can't really call myself a scientist as both of my degrees are firmly in the Humanities. But I do consider that I have a scientific (sceptical & naturalistic) outlook on things.
AM quoted: "Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind." - Descartes
I used to think that the Cartesian idea of "I think, therefore I am" was quite something - though I couldn't figure how to get from that (apparently) obvious statement to anything more substantial. But now I think that Descartes was wrong. Firstly its debatable that there is an *I* doing the thinking. Then there is the question "Do we actually *think*? and How do we know that? Then, of course, it doesn't follow that even if *I* do some 'thinking' that this leads to any kind of proof that I exist - whatever that means. Maybe he said more about it in his books (which I haven't read) so I might be being too hard on him.
AM said: What you describe actually sounds more like philosophical scepticism than scientific scepticism.
Definitely. Scientific scepticism is a particular type of philosophical scepticism. They overlap but are not the same thing.
Oh, and one thing that kind of surprised me is that no one has questioned my doubts over whether or not I actually exist. I'm sure in years gone by I'd be in an asylum for even posing the question [chuckle].
"I think that we can work towards having knowledge about something but that any knowledge will be imperfect and open to being challenged."
I agree. The only way in which society has progressed, in fact, is by challenging entrenched "truths;" everything from 'the Earth is flat' to the belief that certain races are genetically superior to other races... the list goes on.
The only way to grow is the question. Once we stop questioning, we become stunted. And stunted is exactly the word I would use to describe a large portion of the world today. To stubborned or afraid to branch out beyond their "truth".
Peace. If philosophunculists trip themselves up against a solipsist, they aren't worth the salt their brains are fried with. The proper question to start an attack is, what brand of solipsist are you? If s/he has an answer to that (other than something like, "there can be only one"), ask what influenced her/im to think the way that s/he does, ask her/im what his influences were in coming to the conclusion s/he has. If your solipsist names anyone other than him/herself, you've got her/im.
If THAT doesn't work, there are two methods left, both of the "thus I refute Beasley" background. There was a radio program called "Sleep no more" which had an episode by that name, and I ran across a reference in a science fiction book I imagined myself reading. From what I can tell without actually listening to the program, the way Beasley was refuted was for the protagonist to punch him in the nose every time he said anything other than, "This is all real. None of it is a figment of my imagination." Either that, or the protagonist punched himself in the nose (there were no female solipsistic radio show protagonists in 1957, at least in my universe which really only got going well around 1959, when my so-called "birth" occurred).
Since that method might get you arrested by cops who might or might not be solipsists, it's probably best to go with plan B. Every time you run up against a skeptic (note Texan--and therefore correct--spelling) like CK (note eerie reversal of my own initials) is to tell him you'll steal his beer, spit on his shoes, make a loud honking noise, etc. until he at least provisionally admits the possibility of your existence.
You can guess the rest of this strategy, so I won't bore myself reciting anti-solipsistic strategy to people who might be figments of CK or KC's imagination.
Hi KC welcome back.
I think that you mistakenly call me (or seem to be implying that I am) a solipsist. I do not deny the existence of the external world nor do I deny the existence of other minds - though I do have my doubts.
I don't think that we can *prove* that other people, other minds or anything else exists (including ourselves) but I still get up in the morning, go to work, eat lunch etc.. *as if* everything I experience is at it seems for it might very well be that. I experience things that may or may not be real but assume - at least until shown otherwise - that by and large they *are* real. I'm pretty certain that if I lived in a fantasy world of my own creation it would be a better one than this I assure you!
So solipsist I am not - I'm a sceptic... I doubt things. It's what I do. [grin]
Imre Lakatos in his philosophy of science discusses the wrong-headed attempt by scientists to adopt the dogmatist attitude of the Church--the idea that knowledge could be (and indeed, has to be, absolute). Skepticism when taken to extremes ends up being a snake eating its own tail. A worthy exercise, perhaps, if we, like Nagarjuna, are able to dwell in some enlightened state of non-grasping, but a bit silly if the skepticism isn't followed to eat through to its logical conclusions. I'm reminded of a Tibetan monk who had a lucid dream where he went around berating all the monks and sages that he passed in his dream: "You are all just figments of my imagination! Each and every one of you!" He finally came up one very wise old fellow sitting on a stump who said, "That may be true, but so are you!" Many skeptics never get around to meeting the wise old fellow sitting on a stump.
I like Heinlein's "Pan-Solipsism." Everybody is a figment of everybody's imagination and we create fictions (er, "fictons") where we and our characters live.
CK, peace. Yeah, I thought that being a bit solipsistic around the edges was a requirement for all true skeptics, so I lumped you in there. I still do. I'd guess that puts you into the "solipsists who are skeptical about their being solipsists.
It's a version of the old "two kinds of people in the multiverse:" there's people who correctly believe that they're solipsists, and people who incorrectly disbelieve that they're solipsists; anyone else doesn't really exist, so they don't count."
Peace,
KC
Post a Comment