Common sense vs Global Skepticism

[Straw Dog]

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

Okay, global skepticism and its acceptance is in itself without consequence in practice. The point is that to learn to check your own assumption. It is the ability to do it, that counts, not the result.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Straw Dog]

Okay, global skepticism and its acceptance is in itself without consequence in practice. The point is that to learn to check your own assumption. It is the ability to do it, that counts, not the result.

Regards
Mikkel

Yet the result often either confirms or conflicts with the particular assumption in action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet the result often either confirms or conflicts with the particular assumption in action.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Straw Dog]

Can you rephrase that?

You stated that it’s the ability that counts in such a simulation, but not the result. I would say that the consequence is just as meaningful even in a simulated or computational reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You stated that it’s the ability that counts in such a simulation, but not the result. I would say that the consequence is just as meaningful even in a simulated or computational reality.

Yeah, but the consequence is always in the end an evaluation of what matters. I have no problem with that a part of the common sense world is objective in relationship with humans. I have a problem when that is treated as that matters without realizing that it matters, is not objective and that all of the world can't be reduced down to being in effect objective. Or it you like the inability to understand the limitations of reason, logic and evidence. Or if you like the is-ought problem. Or the idea of the perfect rational and justified argument as that runs into Agrippa's Trilemma.

So here it is in practice. I can't say anything about the world without including that I do that and what I figure out about the world only matters, because it matters to me as meaningful. And that doesn't me that I am the objective standard for what matters.
In short:
P1: I have a hand. (Accepted with common sense).
Therefore: ?

So here it is. What is meaningful to you, might not be that to me or in reverse. And that is the limit of common sense in the end. There is no common sense for all of the world, because you can't apply common sense on the subjectively existential meaningful.
In other words, you can't use common sense on some forms of meaningful as for all humans must with common sense arrive at the same result for meaningful.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Straw Dog]

Yeah, but the consequence is always in the end an evaluation of what matters. I have no problem with that a part of the common sense world is objective in relationship with humans. I have a problem when that is treated as that matters without realizing that it matters, is not objective and that all of the world can't be reduced down to being in effect objective. Or it you like the inability to understand the limitations of reason, logic and evidence. Or if you like the is-ought problem. Or the idea of the perfect rational and justified argument as that runs into Agrippa's Trilemma.

So here it is in practice. I can't say anything about the world without including that I do that and what I figure out about the world only matters, because it matters to me as meaningful. And that doesn't me that I am the objective standard for what matters.
In short:
P1: I have a hand. (Accepted with common sense).
Therefore: ?

So here it is. What is meaningful to you, might not be that to me or in reverse. And that is the limit of common sense in the end. There is no common sense for all of the world, because you can't apply common sense on the subjectively existential meaningful.
In other words, you can't use common sense on some forms of meaningful as for all humans must with common sense arrive at the same result for meaningful.

Regards
Mikkel

Yes, Mikkel, our common-sense beliefs are either unsupported, depend upon an infinite chain, or depend upon a circular chain. Admittedly, I’m revealing my cards. I do have reasons to believe it’s an infinity chain of events. I don’t know that’s the case, ergo I don’t reasonably expect all humans to accept that ‘common sense’. That’s where rational tolerance comes from.

Even if some humans have a different common sense, the result is still meaningful. The consequences for our actions inform our thought and behavioral patterns. Anyone over 30 knows that.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

"based on common sense beliefs"

First of all Skepticism/Humanism/Agnosticism/Atheism etc., I understand, don't accept that they are any sort of beliefs/faiths/religions, please.
The the verbal jugglery/terminology that one had to use in the starting paragraphs speaks enough, as I understand, that it is gone far from the common people and hence the common sense. Right friend, please?

Regards