The Problem With Cartesian Skepticism

2. The problem with Cartesian skepticism is that there is not enough evidence to prove that the world around us is always false. Descartes is trying to prove his point off of logic instead of actual evidence. Descartes is putting too much faith on the mind over the physical world. When he explains an evil being manipulating our thoughts and senses he still cannot prove that the evil being actually exists. So Descartes is still going off of assumptions to prove his theory. He tries to resolve this problem by doubting everything around us in the physical world. Descartes proposes that if we doubt everything, the only thing we can be certain of is that we are alive (in the mind) because we can think (I think therefore I am). He has three propositions to how we have knowledge over nothing. He first states that our senses can deceive us. He uses a wax experiment to explain how one may touch wax while blind and the wax is a solid; can be different from when one touches wax when it is a liquid. By different I mean that we may not know that we are still touching wax because it feels different. The problem here is that even if we are being deceived by one sense we cannot just abandon our senses for the physical world. He still does cannot prove that it’s possible the wax does in fact exist. This leads to his second argument to counter my argument. He proposes that we do not truly know when we are awake or asleep. So our perception of the outside world can be manipulated and false while we are dreaming. This still does not answer the question if we what we see can be true. For instance, Descartes believes we could be asleep and see a tree in a dream and the tree could be false because we are not awake. But, what if we are awake and see the tree? Would that not make the tree real? This leads Descartes to his final argument that an evil malignant being is changing our perceptions on our senses. The problem with this argument is …show more content…
Popper believed in a scientific method approach. He believed that everything that we believe to be true must be able to be proven false and tested. If the tests do not prove the belief to be false then we can continue to believe in it. While Berkeley believed that all of our knowledge comes from our senses and without our senses we would not be able to have knowledge. I believe that Popper has the strongest argument because he is not limiting his argument where as the other two are. For instance, with popper you can believe in anything as long as it is proven false. While Berkeley limits you to just the senses while their can still be thought outside of the senses and Descartes does not have enough physical evidence. I believe that the external and internal world is in conjunction with one another. In order for us to be alive we must have both for the body cannot live without the mind, and the mind cannot live without the body. The mind and the body both formulate a recipe which allows us to live with reason and a physical body, but our knowledge on what is true or not cannot just be left to one of the aspects that keep you alive. For instance, only your senses or only your