In Michael Huemer’s essay, “The Lure of Radical Skepticism,” he expands on the idea that ‘we cannot know anything,’ by outlining four different arguments supporting the claim. (Huemer 47-57) René Descartes holds the opposite opinion, which he discusses in ‘Meditations One and Two.’ While there is validity to both sides of the argument, Huemer’s essay proves to be more reliable after dissecting Descartes’ concepts of existence.
Huemer proposes that no one can know anything about the external world, or anything that exists outside of the mind. It is impossible to be certain of how many fingers one has, or if surrounding objects are real or solely a mental representation. Every person, in the assumption there are multiple people in the external world, knows only of their own mind. There is no evidence that objects and people are real, because our minds are relying on our senses which, Huemer claims, are unreliable. (Huemer 47-57) “As an aside, notice that the skeptic does not say you only know what is going on in your head. He says you only know what is going on in your mind. “Heads,” just like fingers and books and brains, are objects in the alleged physical world of whose existence we can never be certain.” (Huemer 48)
Huemer dissects the concept of an external world in four different arguments. There is a possibility that he is simply a brain in a vat, and is being given oxygen and blood artificially, as well variables designed to give the illusion of a physical body and world. This concept is impossible to prove, because the people controlling the brain would not allow it to become aware of its artificial existence. In this case, the lack of evidence for the brain in a vat argument supports the original idea. Another argument is based upon the idea of baseless knowledge. In order to prove a knowledge ‘A,’ one must have evidence that supports ‘A.’ Its supporting knowledge, called knowledge ‘B,’ must also be proven to exist by a knowledge ‘C.’ This cycle, dubbed the ‘Infinite Regress,’ can exist as an infinite number of methods, each proving the other. A similar argument, the problem of criterion, has its foundation in the belief that individuals can trust information gained through methods such as perception, reasoning, and sense. It is justifiable to accept certain beliefs proven by a knowledge ‘A,’ only if ‘A’ is proven to be reliable. However, there is not an infinite series of methods to prove ‘A’ to be reliable. Therefore, all beliefs would have to rest on methods that have not been proven to be reliable. Huemer believes in that case, that no belief can be justified. Our knowledge of the world is heavily dependent upon our senses, however, he argues that humans cannot trust that their senses are portraying an accurate depiction of the external world. When viewing an object, one is not viewing the actual object but rather the mental image of the object. There is no evidence that these mental objects are an accurate portrayal of the external world. Huemer continues to suggest that every piece of knowledge is derived from one 's senses, even knowledge that was not directly experienced. He provides the example of the Battle of Hastings, which occurred in 1066. Although he was not there to sensually observe the battle, he is aware that it happened because he read it in a textbook. He knows of its existence simply because his senses allowed him to read a book. This line of reasoning is applicable for every piece of knowledge gained through media, books, lectures, and the myriad other ways to receive information; all knowledge is directly or indirectly derived from the senses. Because it is impossible to prove the existence of anything, it …show more content…
But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.” (Descartes 33) However, after focusing on that concept he realized that in order to think and doubt the existence of everything, he must first exist. Following that line of reasoning, he realized that his existence was the only thing he knew to be true, and by extension, his intellect and his ability to think was also
Huemer proposes that no one can know anything about the external world, or anything that exists outside of the mind. It is impossible to be certain of how many fingers one has, or if surrounding objects are real or solely a mental representation. Every person, in the assumption there are multiple people in the external world, knows only of their own mind. There is no evidence that objects and people are real, because our minds are relying on our senses which, Huemer claims, are unreliable. (Huemer 47-57) “As an aside, notice that the skeptic does not say you only know what is going on in your head. He says you only know what is going on in your mind. “Heads,” just like fingers and books and brains, are objects in the alleged physical world of whose existence we can never be certain.” (Huemer 48)
Huemer dissects the concept of an external world in four different arguments. There is a possibility that he is simply a brain in a vat, and is being given oxygen and blood artificially, as well variables designed to give the illusion of a physical body and world. This concept is impossible to prove, because the people controlling the brain would not allow it to become aware of its artificial existence. In this case, the lack of evidence for the brain in a vat argument supports the original idea. Another argument is based upon the idea of baseless knowledge. In order to prove a knowledge ‘A,’ one must have evidence that supports ‘A.’ Its supporting knowledge, called knowledge ‘B,’ must also be proven to exist by a knowledge ‘C.’ This cycle, dubbed the ‘Infinite Regress,’ can exist as an infinite number of methods, each proving the other. A similar argument, the problem of criterion, has its foundation in the belief that individuals can trust information gained through methods such as perception, reasoning, and sense. It is justifiable to accept certain beliefs proven by a knowledge ‘A,’ only if ‘A’ is proven to be reliable. However, there is not an infinite series of methods to prove ‘A’ to be reliable. Therefore, all beliefs would have to rest on methods that have not been proven to be reliable. Huemer believes in that case, that no belief can be justified. Our knowledge of the world is heavily dependent upon our senses, however, he argues that humans cannot trust that their senses are portraying an accurate depiction of the external world. When viewing an object, one is not viewing the actual object but rather the mental image of the object. There is no evidence that these mental objects are an accurate portrayal of the external world. Huemer continues to suggest that every piece of knowledge is derived from one 's senses, even knowledge that was not directly experienced. He provides the example of the Battle of Hastings, which occurred in 1066. Although he was not there to sensually observe the battle, he is aware that it happened because he read it in a textbook. He knows of its existence simply because his senses allowed him to read a book. This line of reasoning is applicable for every piece of knowledge gained through media, books, lectures, and the myriad other ways to receive information; all knowledge is directly or indirectly derived from the senses. Because it is impossible to prove the existence of anything, it …show more content…
But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.” (Descartes 33) However, after focusing on that concept he realized that in order to think and doubt the existence of everything, he must first exist. Following that line of reasoning, he realized that his existence was the only thing he knew to be true, and by extension, his intellect and his ability to think was also