What are the best arguments against global skepticism?
Cartesian? Russelian? Moorean?
Personally, I favor semantic-based arguments. Putnam’s semantic externalism yields some good points regarding context-based meanings, but still has its own fatal flaws.
David Chalmers’ cheerful skepticism makes the most sense to me. Yes, maybe we are just a brain in a vat, but so what? We should just accept the logical possibility of global skepticism while continuing to operate based on common sense beliefs. Even if our hands are computational or illusory, the meaning of ‘hands’ is still common-sense.
We could also just adopt a defensive position. If critical thinking is a cognitive immune system, then perhaps global skepticism is an auto-immune disease. We begin to doubt everything beyond the natural utility.
What do you think?
Cartesian? Russelian? Moorean?
Personally, I favor semantic-based arguments. Putnam’s semantic externalism yields some good points regarding context-based meanings, but still has its own fatal flaws.
David Chalmers’ cheerful skepticism makes the most sense to me. Yes, maybe we are just a brain in a vat, but so what? We should just accept the logical possibility of global skepticism while continuing to operate based on common sense beliefs. Even if our hands are computational or illusory, the meaning of ‘hands’ is still common-sense.
We could also just adopt a defensive position. If critical thinking is a cognitive immune system, then perhaps global skepticism is an auto-immune disease. We begin to doubt everything beyond the natural utility.
What do you think?