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!