Skepticism is untenable

       Skepticism is a position of questioning or doubt. On its face, this may seem innocent, even beneficial. For how do we come to knowledge if we do not ask questions? Also, how do we refine our knowledge if we do not first doubt it? While both of the preceding questions raise valid points, these are internal questions, which also exist in common parlance. So to that end, I will not be attacking 'skepticism' in this sense. The mere act of doubting or questioning in and of itself is not at issue. Rather, I will be addressing Skepticism; the philosophical view point of Epistemology. Epistemology is the study and theory of knowledge; what is it, and how to we come by it? Skepticism in this regard rejects, on some level, the very existence of knowledge. On the extreme end we have Philosophical Skepticism which states that all knowledge is unobtainable, and on the conservative end we have the practice of merely doubting the truth of a proposition. I will be addressing three specific aspects of skepticism:

1. Philosophical Skepticism: The belief that all knowledge of all kinds is unobtainable. Beholdents of this view make their statements meaningful in respect to incorrigible beliefs. Rather than say "I know I have  hands" they would say "It seems to me that I have hands" Thus preventing any reason to require justification for knowledge.
2. Skepticism Hypotheses: These are hypotheses that try to support some sort of Skepticism (Most often Philosophical skepticism) By propounding the possibility of a premise, who's very possibility undermines the very core of our knowledge (an example would be the hypothesis that we are all in The Matrix, etc)
3. Grounded and Ungrounded Skepticism: I seek to show that there is a new distinction to be made in the different forms of skepticism and that only one is tenable.

       I find the positions of Skepticism to be untenable. This is to say that one cannot rationally hold to its consequence without finding one refuting your self, or else being incoherent. I arrive at this belief upon reasoning that Skepticism invokes a view that refutes itself. As we know, a position or view that refutes itself cannot be true, and this fact justifies us in discarding it. The argument can be summarized as follows:

1. If Skepticism is self refuting, it is untenable
2. Skepticism is self refuting
3. Therefore; Skepticism is untenable.

Premise (1) is true by way of the nature of self-refuting propositions, and (3) follows logically by the law of Syllogism. Therefore, we really only need support one premise, and that is premise (2) for if in fact Skepticism IS self refuting, we have grounds for dismissing it. How then, do we support premise (2)? I offer,  that is is more plausibly true than not that (2) is true, and my justification is the following:

Philosophical Skepticism is Inherently Self-refuting.

       Philosophical Skepticism is, as you will recall, the belief that all knowledge is unobtainable. We shall deal with this particular view in the most swift fashion. For on its very precepts, we can reduce this view to a single proposition: All knowledge is unobtainable. Without the need to address any of the possible support for this view we can dismiss it. This is due to the fact that the statement references, or in the very least, is capable of referencing itself. So then we shall apply the statements very criterion to itself. If all knowledge is unobtainable, how then do we know it is unobtainable? How do we know we have not obtained it? If we do not know that knowledge is unobtainable, why believe it is? One might say, "Well, I don't know that knowledge is unobtainable, that's just how unobtainable it is!" If we do not know knowledge is unobtainable, then it is quite possible that it is obtainable. That is to say that the statement "Knowledge is unobtainable" is not necessarily true, or that is to say, that knowledge is possibly obtainable. In this way we see that the statement refutes itself. For we can never get to a point, by its own meaning, in which we can believe it. This gives fairly good support to Premise (2) of our argument.

Skepticism Hypotheses are incoherent.

       A Skepticism Hypothesis, is a hypothesis that, while remaining possible, aims to strike at the very foundation of how we come to knowledge. This usually is constructed in some way as to show that the data we receive from our senses (hearing, seeing, feeling) is not reliable or veridical, based on the possibility of our sense data being false. A great example would be The Matrix. A skeptic might say, how do you know you are in the United States? You would respond that all data you have available through your senses tells you that you are in the United States. The skeptic would then counter by saying; "Well, it might seem that you are in the United States, but what if you're in the matrix, and it is only an illusion?" Well, in this case, if you were in the matrix, it is very likely that you would be deceived in believing you are in the united states when in reality you are in some holding-pen for members of the matrix. The problem with this type of skepticism arises when we examine its own conditionals. Consider this question: How do you know its possible we're in the matrix? For if we were in the matrix, any faculties that allow you to infer the possibility would be false or unreliable. So in that sense we cannot know if its possible if we're in the matrix because it is possible we're in the matrix. This is of course incoherent as its very possibility undermines its own assault on knowledge. For if we cannot know if its possible that we're in the matrix we are justified in believing we're not. This is ironic as it is the very type of conclusion they're trying to avoid. The aim is to show that any justification for knowledge you could have is undermined by the possibility of it being false. However this possibility's justification is itself undermined by its own possibility! For these reasons, we can discard all Skepticism hypotheses. This lends more support to premise (2) of our argument.

Grounded and Ungrounded Skepticism

       As we have seen, Skepticism as a view and as a hypothesis is largely untenable. How then, do we meaningfully go about asking questions? Or rather, how do we go about questioning the knowledge we claim to have? I offer that skepticism is salvageable in its current form. This will be done by distinguishing between different types of skepticism and showing that for one distinction, its questions have meaning. The Distinction will be as follows:

• Grounded Skepticism: Skepticism or questioning of knowledge that itself is based in, or reliant upon, Some outside knowledge. That is to say, questioning some knowledge on the grounds of claiming some other knowledge.
• Ungrounded Skepticism: Skepticism or questioning of knowledge that is only based in the doubt of the truth of its subject. That is to say, questioning without grounds on which to question.

       Most all of the skepticism we have examined to this juncture is that of ungrounded skepticism. That is to say, the skeptic asks questions on the basis of trying to deny some knowledge in the process. The skeptic in these cases never claims to have any independent knowledge, and when investigated we find that the lack of independent knowledge is the core failure of his inquiry. What should happen, then, if we were to be skeptical and ask questions on the basis of claiming some other knowledge? We intuitively do this whenever someone tells us something we at first don't believe. We most often question it, due to the fact that we believe we have some knowledge that contradicts an important part of their claim. Consider the following:

Mary: "Hey guys! Just 10 minuets ago I saw Bob stealing someones bike!!"
Larry: " I don't think that's correct, 10 minuets ago I was with Bob and we were purchasing sodas"

Clearly Larry is skeptical of Marry's claim due to the fact that he claims some knowledge that is contradictory to hers. This would be Grounded Skepticism and he can meaningfully question whether or not Marry knows what she is talking about. Now Contrast that with the following:

Marry: "Hey guys! Just 10 minuets ago I saw Bob stealing someones bike!!"
Larry: "How do you know Bob was stealing someone's bike? Its possible it was his bike, its also possible he doesn't even know what a bike is! How do you know you weren't mistaken? Isn't it Possible you were mistaken? Why conclude that you saw Bob stealing someones bike?"

In this scenario, Larry exhibits ungrounded skepticism. He doesn't question Marry's claim on the basis of some independent knowledge, but rather, simply on the basis that he can ask a question. He calls in all sorts of possibilities, such as the fact that Bob might own a bike. However, he has no justification for thinking this is the case, he also leaves out that the probability is low that it would even appear as thought Bob were stealing a bike if it were in fact his. He also brings into question Marry's visual faculties. He questions whether or not she can rely on what she thought she had seen. Again he has know independent knowledge claim that could serve to justify his question, and thus leaves Marry no reason to question her visual faculties. If Marry is to question her visual faculties, then it is in fact possible that she isn't even seeing Larry such that she might be questioned by him! This has all the same problems as the previous forms of Skepticism; they are questions that get us nowhere. This gives us good reason to discard ungrounded skepticism, and gives good support to premise (2) of our argument.

   In conclusion, We have show that Skepticism (at least when ungrounded) is untenable. We have seen how the Philosophical position of skepticism refutes itself, how skepticism hypotheses are incoherent, as well as how we can distinguish questions in a way that still allows them to have meaning. We have given and supported a deductive argument that supports the statement: Skepticism is untenable. I encourage you to be on the look out for ungrounded skepticism and skepticism hypotheses, as they can take many different forms. If you learn to do this you'll be one step closer to that ever elusive lady; Truth. So stay smart and keep thinking!

On Semantics: Internal and External questions

     I plan to make several posts concerning different topics in philosophy. I understand that it is a field that is mostly misunderstood as well as seeming somewhat arcane to those without training. One crucial aspect of philosophy that must be understood before any meaningful endeavour can be made into it's questions is that of Semantics. I'm sure you have heard before in political debates or any debates that are of a particularly deep substance, someone being accused of "just using semantics". This is both an accurate and inaccurate way of using the word 'semantics' in the context of a debate or discussion. The accusation is usually laid against someone who has merely attempted to manipulate the meanings of several words or ideas in such a way as to give them a positional advantage in the debate, or get out of a particularly problematic argument. However, this does is an unjust casting of semantics. Semantics is far more than mincing words to suit your purpose.

     The word Semantics comes from the Greek word: sēmantiká, which loosely translates as "the meaning". Semantics is a study and practice of just that; meaning. Semantics has no 'hard' rules or views such as other branches of philosophy (Ontology, Epistemology). Semantics is simply the practice of assigning specific meaning to certain words so they have a clear and consistent definition when pertaining to a specific debate or discussion. This is due not only to the fact that certain words have multiple meanings, but also to the fact that in reality words have no meaning at all. Words as we properly understand them, both their written and spoken forms, are merely representations for meaning. When you think about it, take the word [Lizard] for example, the meaning represented by the word is of vertebrate life form of any variety that belongs to the general family of reptiles. If I tell you that the word [Mackosplatis] for example, refers to a vertebrate life from belonging to the general family of reptiles, am I wrong? Maybe in common English parlance, but really, if I created the word, can I not create it's meaning? This is the chore of semantics. Identifying problematic terms and deciding an agreed upon meaning that everyone will use when discussing certain topics. A good example is Life. In common parlance the word Life has several meanings that are all contextual. However, In the Semantics of Biology, Life refers to a very specific set of criteria an object must conform to in order to be classed in the category of Life.

Internal and External Questions

      Semantics, however, does not only deal with the meaning of words. It also deals with the meaning of entire phrases or 'propositions'. It does this in relation, specifically, to questions. Much of philosophy is asking questions, and as the adage goes, you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

     The philosopher Rudolf Carnap recognized this and provided a system to better understand it. In his system there are 'Internal Questions' and 'External Questions'. Identifying what type a particular question is provides great insight not only to its answer, but how to find its answer. The main difference between Internal and External questions is how they treat their subject. To put it simply, an external question asks about the subject itself, while an Internal question asks about properties or relations of the subject.

Consider the following examples:

1. Its late. Where could they be?
2. What does it mean to be?

In the above example we have both an Internal and External question. Question (1) is an internal question as the term 'be' already has a very understood and applicable meaning such that it can be used in the way it is. Internal questions require that certain aspects of their subject be grounded already so they can make meaningful statements about it. For if what it means to 'be' is still a mystery or up for discussion, then the statement "where could they be"  would seem meaningless. Internal language allows us to make these meaningful statements that include a particular subject. External questions on the other hand, like (2), are questioning how we can make meaningful statements pertaining to the subject in question. They could also be statements that exist out side the semantic framework of their subject.
Consider the following:

1. What are the properties of this car?
2. Properties don't exist

    Statement (2) is made with external language compared to that of (1). Even though this isn't a question, the language used is still external to the subject. Be careful to see someone using external language in response to internal questions or statements, as it really muddies the waters for discussion. This is especially useful this year, as politics is in full swing and you can count on some semantic slip ups here and there.

     In conclusion, Semantics is a deep and complex field of philosophy, and one that shouldn't only be used as an insult to someone who has debated poorly. Keep on the look out for instances of Semantic distinctions and see how you feel about them, you'll find yourself asking questions you thought you already had the answer to! This is the excitement of philosophy!

New School year, new thoughts!!

Hello fellow classmates:

                     My name is Joseph Davis. I'm a transfer student from OTC where I studied electronic media production. Upon realizing that wasn't what I wanted to do with myself, I transferred to MSSU where I'm currently a secondary education major. When I went to register for my classes, there was no comp II class available on campus. Since I didn't want to wait another semester to take this class, I chose to take the online version as I have never taken an online class. I welcome new challenges and look forward to learning with you. I'm also very fond of the study of Philosophy and more specifically Metaphysics and plan to study those topics when I attend graduate school.

Things you can expect from this blog:

1. Posts related to, or being, assignments for the class
2. possibly random and out of context philosophy musings
3. some context to go with those random musings
4. numbered lists (like this one). 

So there's a short introduction to my blog. If you're wondering what kind of philosophical things might be posted here: I'm currently studying Sartre's discount on the primacy of the Cartesian foundation of Cogito Ergo Sum. Being that his entire system is built on it, I seek to show its problems as well as lay a foundation for a metaphysical system of my own. Its key points will be the nature of being, ontological accounting for logic, solving the problem of induction as presented by Hume, and establishing a protection from parsimony regarding categories and their use in ethics.