Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The position of philosophical skepticism is something like this:
We cannot know anything about reality with certainty.
Or wiki:
(It is generally agreed that knowledge requires justification. It is not enough to have a true belief: one must also have good reasons for that belief. )
Skeptics claim that it is not possible to have an adequate justification.
Do you think this is correct? Why?
Please note this is different than scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism is questioning whether claims about reality are justified scientifically...they are testable, evidenced, observable, etc. Scientific skepticism is really just applied science...or scientific inquiry, being critical, etc. Or the general definition of skepticism that is "to question". None of these types of skepticism is being addressed.
We cannot know anything about reality with certainty.
Or wiki:
(It is generally agreed that knowledge requires justification. It is not enough to have a true belief: one must also have good reasons for that belief. )
Skeptics claim that it is not possible to have an adequate justification.
Do you think this is correct? Why?
Please note this is different than scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism is questioning whether claims about reality are justified scientifically...they are testable, evidenced, observable, etc. Scientific skepticism is really just applied science...or scientific inquiry, being critical, etc. Or the general definition of skepticism that is "to question". None of these types of skepticism is being addressed.