0

Basically, can we prove that we won't be able to overcome the skeptic argument? Anything I should look up to better understand this?

ninek
  • 201
  • 3
  • 8
  • 4
    What have you found out so far? – Joseph Weissman Dec 20 '16 at 23:31
  • Anti-realists think so, but realists obviously disagree. Who are we supposed to prove it to, and what counts as proof? Why the complication of "proving that we won't be able to overcome the skeptical argument" (which one?) rather than just accepting it as proof, or rejecting it? – Conifold Dec 21 '16 at 00:23
  • How can radical skepticism ever be refuted if they can doubt in validity of the method you would use to do so? – ninek Dec 21 '16 at 19:59
  • "Anything I should look up to better understand this?" yes. give it a try, you might be surprised. –  Dec 21 '16 at 22:22
  • @mobileink would you answer the comment I made above? – ninek Dec 21 '16 at 22:46
  • I could, but I think you would be better off posting that as a question. it's more specific than what you've asked here, so might get better answers. FWIW, a comment is not the place for questions. not trying to beat you up! just suggesting a (possibly) more fruitful approach. –  Dec 21 '16 at 22:55
  • @mobileink Should I edit the question or ask another one? Don't know the etiquette of this forum. – ninek Dec 21 '16 at 23:34
  • I would be inclined to post a different q. but maybe we can get @Keelan to offer an opinion. –  Dec 21 '16 at 23:39
  • I'm guessing that you're just getting stated in philosophy (forgive me if not). one of the great things about philosophy is that even seemingly simple qs turn out to be very complex. for exame, there are various ways to understand "skeptic argument". so you might start by asking a (seemingly) simple question like "what exactly is skepticism? Caveat: it's probably been asked before so do a search first. –  Dec 21 '16 at 23:48
  • I'm not. The proof by contradiction below is wrong. I'll just make a new question. – ninek Dec 22 '16 at 00:06
  • By suggestion I've asked this question again. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/39826/can-radical-skepticism-be-refuted – ninek Dec 22 '16 at 00:25

3 Answers3

2

The skeptic argument is unreliable because it asserts the reality of its own proposition in contradiction to its own premises. It says: It is real that we can't prove anything is real. It is a self-defying argument. Skepticism is a tool inside reason and is not a procedure to derive proof about the world itself.

John Am
  • 1,324
  • 1
  • 14
  • 33
0

To prove something you always have to look at a problem/hypothesis from an higher viewpoint. It is impossible to solve a problem when only looking at the problem from within the domain itself because it can affect your view at the problem.

When you solve a mathematics problem you are solving it with only mathematics. But you are looking at the problem and thinking about the problem without mathematics can affect your thinking.

So to solve the problem "Can we prove that we can't prove reality?" we realy have to look at reality from outside of reality otherwise reality can have effect on the results. This clearly is impossible at this moment in time.

so there is some sort of prove for you.

Ravenix
  • 126
  • 3
  • Following your argument no problem in mathematics can be proved inside the domain of mathematics. Is my understanding of your position correct? If not, what is your position? – Moritz Dec 23 '16 at 00:42
  • @Moritz, that is not what I meant. You can look at mathematics and reason on it from outside of mathematics itself. You can look at a mathematics problem without it interfering with your reasoning. Something not possible when you look at reality. I'll update my answer. – Ravenix Dec 23 '16 at 08:47
0

Existence necessarily exists. There are several synthetic a priori judgments that are necessarily true; Mises fleshed out a view. Look into Descartes's Meditations as well; there seems to be possible equivocation with your question.

Lothrop Stoddard
  • 551
  • 2
  • 7