Arguing with Skeptics

[TheCapitalist]

I was recently in an argument with a pair of skeptics, who put forward a number of arguments in order to conclude that the human mind cannot know anything, or is always wrong in any conclusion (epistemological skepticism).

 

This was their 'reasoning':

 

They purported that anything that has the potential to be flawed, is flawed. Thus, since man's perceptions and rational processes can be distorted, by a drug perhaps, or man can make errors in logic, whatever the cause, man's perceptions, and rational processes are inherently flawed.

 

Their rationale is that for any measurement, perception, or course of logic, there is the possibility of error, imprecision, or illusion due to any number of factors, therefore it is inherently wrong.

 

Furthermore, they argued that if I proved them wrong, then I would be validating their philosophy because their entire point is, basically, that everyone is wrong about everything.

 

In response I argued that for one: their condemnation of any sort of absolute, is in itself an assumption of an absolute. Second, I argued that one cannot assume the possibility of error without evidence for such a possibility. Third, I argued that they based their conclusions on their own perceptions and logic, things they were trying to discredit. However through some annoying circular logic they tried to dismiss these points and continue their point that everything is uncertain and knowledge is impossible.

 

This was not an argument for which I was readily prepared, and became exhausted by the circularity of the philosophy they tried to defend. How do you respond to such philosophical standpoints? What is the objectivist response to epistemological skepticism?

[softwareNerd]

They purported that anything that has the potential to be flawed, is flawed. Thus, since man's perceptions and rational processes can be distorted, by a drug perhaps, or man can make errors in logic, whatever the cause, man's perceptions, and rational processes are inherently flawed.

Suppose we accept that rational processes are flawed, what's the implication? For instance, supposing I were to prove to you that, in (say) 10 years, you will look back at 5% of the conclusions you reach today and judge them to have been wrong. What would you do differently today?

How do you think your friends would answer that question?

Edited September 6, 2014 by softwareNerd

[aleph_1]

You argued well. They argued against the efficacy of their one tool of survival. By their very continued existence I declare reductio ad absurdum. And I add, it is manifestly apparent that we can form false ideas. It is equally manifestly apparent that we can form correct ideas.

Edited September 7, 2014 by aleph_1

[Plasmatic]

TheCapitalist said:

Furthermore, they argued that if I proved them wrong, then I would be validating their philosophy because their entire point is, basically, that everyone is wrong about everything.

This is stealing the concepts "proof" and "validation" on their part. What could proof mean without the correct evidence? What could validate mean without the successful attainment of a proper method? All skeptics smuggle certainty and knowledge into their every claim about doubt..... Edited September 7, 2014 by Plasmatic

[William O]

You argued pretty well from my point of view, but I have some advice to offer about the psychology of a skeptic.

 

A skeptic is usually someone who has been told that knowledge is impossible, and actually given what seem initially to be pretty solid arguments for the conclusion that knowledge is impossible. If you don't understand the Objectivist epistemology, Descartes' evil demon thought experiment sounds pretty darn invulnerable, or at least that was how I remember feeling about it for a long time: How are you going to disprove an evil demon that you can't detect by definition?

 

So the people who eventually become skeptics come across these thought experiments in their conversations with other people in high school or perhaps in a college class, and they hear them repeated over and over by people they respect, like college professors. They think them through from every angle but, barring a certain depth of thought that they are unlikely to have at that age, they cannot see a single possible hole in them.

 

So, from a skeptic's point of view, it really does seem dead certain that nothing is certain. They have this invincible argument against knowledge that no one can find a hole in and everyone important seems to agree is flawless. So when they come across you, the anti-skeptic, you seem just incredibly naive to them, and they sort of automatically shut out your words.

 

Another psychological point about the skeptic is that the skeptic has taken a fall back position. They do not hold their position because it is coherent or makes any sense internally. They hold their position because as far as they can tell, every piece of knowledge, whether scientific or moral or whatever, has been refuted, and they are left in sort of an incoherent babbling mess (at least when they try to think in a rigorous philosophical way). So just telling a skeptic that their position is self refuting, as you did in a couple of different ways, will often have no effect on them, because that's just another part of the incoherent babbling that they feel they are stuck in.

 

So, while skepticism is transparently irrational in every way, I hope I have made your conversation with these skeptics a little more intelligible on a psychological level.

[A is A]

I was recently in an argument with a pair of skeptics, who put forward a number of arguments in order to conclude that the human mind cannot know anything, or is always wrong in any conclusion (epistemological skepticism).

 

This was their 'reasoning':

 

They purported that anything that has the potential to be flawed, is flawed. Thus, since man's perceptions and rational processes can be distorted, by a drug perhaps, or man can make errors in logic, whatever the cause, man's perceptions, and rational processes are inherently flawed.

 

Their rationale is that for any measurement, perception, or course of logic, there is the possibility of error, imprecision, or illusion due to any number of factors, therefore it is inherently wrong.

 

Furthermore, they argued that if I proved them wrong, then I would be validating their philosophy because their entire point is, basically, that everyone is wrong about everything.

 

In response I argued that for one: their condemnation of any sort of absolute, is in itself an assumption of an absolute. Second, I argued that one cannot assume the possibility of error without evidence for such a possibility. Third, I argued that they based their conclusions on their own perceptions and logic, things they were trying to discredit. However through some annoying circular logic they tried to dismiss these points and continue their point that everything is uncertain and knowledge is impossible.

 

This was not an argument for which I was readily prepared, and became exhausted by the circularity of the philosophy they tried to defend. How do you respond to such philosophical standpoints? What is the objectivist response to epistemological skepticism?

Your arguments are sound.  On the last point, they were using the fallacy of self exclusion.  See Taking Philosophy Seriously for a good presentation of this fallacy.  By avoiding your arguments, they are using evasion as a method of dismissing you so that they don't have to acknowldge your arguments.  If they refuse to deal with your arguments and simply repeat what they are saying, you can bet you've gotten to the point of someone who uses emotions as a guide to their thinking.  Simply make your case, and leave them to their own devices. 

 

You cannot convince someone who does not use reason with a rational argument.  There is no referent in the external world to which you both can cite as truth.  They are looking at their inner world of floating abstrations and emotional associations. 

[Iudicious]

The objective way to deal with someone making a claim like that is to laugh in their face. But I suppose that's not always socially appropriate.

 

You made solid arguments. There's more that could be said, but not more that absolutely needs to be said in the face of such arguments. Anyone making an argument like that though likely isn't open to reason. It never hurts to try, but it sounds like in your case you offered some pretty solid arguments, and they just handwaved them away. They aren't gonna respond to rational arguments, because there's no way they arrived at that kind of conclusion from a point of reason. The best you can do is hope that they'll eventually grow out of them - I think I've yet to meet someone older than myself who still holds onto such ridiculous notions. 

[William O]

The objective way to deal with someone making a claim like that is to laugh in their face. But I suppose that's not always socially appropriate.

When I'm dealing with someone who is being unreasonable but I don't want to turn the conversation rude, I usually just say "thanks for the conversation" or "I'm not interested in discussing this subject further."