PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Three Responses to Skepticism [HD] 

Moore: I have hands therefore I exist.

This Epistemology thing is for me all the questions I thought of and never bothered to say,analyze them, not even at the pub. And some people organized this and scientifically worked on the subject. I find this Amazing!

Moore was that one kid who put up his hand in class to answer only to show he didn’t understand the question

If someone says your hands don't exist punch them in the nose.

I haven't read Moore, but I really hope there's more substance to his case than this, because what was presented here was 100% pure-grade fallacy from beginning to end.

Let's run an experiment with some very strong hallucinogens and some really skilled philosophers and see if any of them can get out of their "bad case."

Moore's answer is literal hand waving.

If I don't exist, tell that to my creditors.

"Descartes thinks that the idea of an infinite and perfect being could not have come from an imperfect being" Does he ever make an effort to prove this assertion? How would he go about doing so?

Moore's argument reminds of Samuel Johnson reportedly countering Berkeley's notion of Idealism by kicking a rock and proclaiming "I refute it thus".

(I am happy to see at least one reference to "The Matrix.") Who cares? i.e. Why does knowledge matter? If knowledge matters at all, global skepticism goes away quite quickly: 1) If I am dreaming, it follows that I will wake up. I will worry about it then. I don't NEED to do anything about it right now. 2) If I am a brain in a jar, then I will just have to live with that reality, even if I am not aware of it. There's nothing I can do about it. 3)The evil genius never goes away. My reality, beyond myself, can be put in a box (which might even contain a benevolent god) which might be controlled by an evil genius. The strategy is that the evil genius holds his power in reserve, and can defeat my supposed knowledge at any time. There's nothing I can do about this, either. 4) If there is nothing I can do about it, as in cases 2 and 3, then knowledge doesn't matter. What remains are practical issues of knowledge, generally about forming decisions with respect to taking actions. This could include abstract questions such as "How do I serve God?" (Do I know what good is? Will this action result in good?) When the standard for knowledge is strictly too high, as in global skepticism, it becomes paralyzing. There is the potential for the sin of commission, as well as the sin of omission.

Love to see these videos. I am a bit to pragmatic to be a skeptic, but find it whimsical. That is its draw to me at least. Thank you

Some simple responses to these arguments for all you skeptics out there: *1. Doubt the Cogito:* Descartes' immovable point with which to move the world is not so immovable. It contains an argument, (therefore) which the deceiver can distort, which is why Descartes, in his original formulation did not include the "ergo", does thought imply existence? Maybe not. And how do you know you are thinking? Or, at least, that the sensation that you are claiming is "thought" is actually "thought"? Perhpas instead it is tickle. And what is this "you" you speak of? Personal identity is a shaky concept at best, even if there was no evil deceiver around. *2. Abduction is Bad Reasoning* Russell relies on the flimsiest of types of reasoning, namely abduction, or argument to the best explanation. There is not, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, or instinct and truth. These are things that humans like, sure, and make us feel good, but that does not make them true! Furthermore, we can't even come up with a consistent system of mathematics or logic (see Godel, sorry Russell), let alone a consistent system of science. Finally, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, we cannot just take some belief at face value because we had it before. We all start without beliefs, (unless you think babies have propositional attitudes) so there should be no privilege given to some that we happen to acquire sooner. *3. Destruction of debate* Moore's argument is the worst of all because of what it could lead us to. This is the kind of reasoning that leads to fights instead of discussion. Steadfastly refusing that you could not be wrong is what leads people of faith to fight instead of talk. Many people consider the fact that God exists, something that is everyday and basic. But it seems that we want a philosophical argument for that claim, even though it might be categorized as a simple intuition. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. Moore pointing at his hands is no more effective than a theist pointing at a cross or waving around a Koran. And even if Moore proves effective against eh academic skeptic that is making the positive claim that you do not know, I see no way he can defeat the Pyrrhonian who does not know if you can know, and therefore has no burden of proof.

My only complain is the volume of speech versus volume of the intro.

Offer the argument "What IS money,anyway? to a loanshark to whom you owe money,and you will quickly face "relevant consequentialism..."

The only meaningful counter to philosophical skepticism is a pragmatic one, IMO. As I see it, whether what any of us experience is true reality, a matrix, a dream brought on by an evil demon, what have you, is largely irrelevant to the fact that the only reality we have access to is the one we experience through our senses. As such, my main concern is achieving the most desirable(to me) outcomes as possible in the reality I experience, which means acting as if this experience is reality and finding the most successful strategy to predict my future experiences. IMO, this best strategy is an epistemology built on methodological skepticism, methodological naturalism and methodological empiricism. Basically, science.

But wouldn't the hand be in some way also real if it would just be simulated or something similar since it's just an idea of that reoccurring object? We'd also say a computer game is real even if it doesn't have any physical properties or software in general

My take on this is it doesn't matter. My point in acquiring knowledge is to better understand my current reality. Regardless weather I am dreaming, I am controlled by a genie or I am just a brain in a vat. As long as that situation will hold for the rest of my existence, that is the knowledge I want to acquire. I want to know the rules of my dream world, the moods of my genie or the programing of the computer controlling my brain in a vat.

I really enjoy how clearly you present your discussions. Thank you ☺

My first response to skepticism would be if this was all a dream how would the ideas of the dream would come in the first place. Before you were born you had absolutely anything to dream about and looking back at memories before you would be completely empty. That is why a whole life of dreaming would not be true. At least you need to have some level of experience to generate the ideas for your dream

Thanks Professor Nagel. See you tomorrow :)

This is hands down the best series on RU-vid!

If I am real, then I exist, if I am a figment of someone else's imagination, then someone exists to imagine me. Whatever the circumstance ( brain in a jar, pawn of an evil genius) ...... there is still a 'me' within it no? And if I exist, even as a construct of someone else's imagination - so does the possibility, no matter how infinitesimal - for me to incite change in that reality (and thus, so does the possibility of discerning whether or not that infinitesimal change is real or imagined).

How do I really know Jennifer Nagel made this video?

"I have an infinite idea" really means "I _think_ I have an infinite idea" or "I'm deluding myself that I have an infinite idea"

Why is skepticism a problem?

Why not make it simpler and accept it might all be a dream but acknowledge that it never matters if it is or not.

I love working the "machinery of mind!" But I also understand that we subsist on condition and consequence, regardless of our powers of reason, and that this will always be so...

My response to Skepticism. Just because you can't know something is true, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because there could be an alternative explanation to what we know, it doesn't mean that our explanation is wrong. There is no ultimate reason why what it means to know something should be universal or explainable to other people. Just because someone can't explain to you how they know something, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. And how someone knows something is under no obligation to make sense to you. My ultimate response to the skeptic is that they can't understand how I know. The Truth does not obligate an explanation of itself.

I like this video I'm finely over solipsism because of it man that was a bad time I realize it is a big if this idea is true type of thing now but I'll talk again if I have any panic attacks about it the idea is so scary

They are all wrong. Even if I'm a brain in a vat it doesn't matter so long as I'm stuck in that dreamworld/simulation without a chance at leaving then I have to play by that worlds rules.

Love it❤ thanks so much!!

Even though Moore's case might seem flawed and basic, I wouldn't dismiss it too soon. It's worth thinking about.

I am amazed on how so called Russel`s and Moore`s arguments are attributed to these two persons at all. Any normal person would have responded to skeptic`s claim in these ways. So what makes these two special?

It's ridiculous to doubt the existence of your own hand... therefore just believe in anything you want without evidence? Yeah, I guess that *would* be an answer to skepticism...

About Descartes point of how an idea of an infinite perfect being must equal an infinite and perfect god. I want to preface this w/ the fact that I do think some truths/certain knowledges are possible and attainable. This would be done by narrowing the scope of the claim/truth. However, Correlation does not equal Causation. Is Descartes point at 1:55 not correlation? What if there are other factors involved that we as humans don't know? Moreover, how does Descartes or anyone know that their own idea of an infinite and perfect being is in fact what is truly infinite and perfect? There is so much we don't know, let alone the things we don't even know, we don't know.

I always loosely liked Moore's general idea, but I never really liked the way he reasoned it. I prefer the following: "Literally ALL evidence EVER leads to the conclusion that there is an external world, so that is the only reasonable conclusion. It could be wrong, but if it is, then you would be unreasonable if you came to the correct conclusion." I know that isn't the same conclusion Moore reached, but I think it is a stronger argument from a similar stating point. That said, there's something rather entertaining about his paper "Proof of an External World" by G.E. Moore and I highly recommend everyone read at least the first couple of pages.

I have an infinite idea. I got it from Descartes. Does that mean that Descartes is God?

If a system can build a comprehensive and believable reality the only way to determine from within that it isn't real is to find and prove paradoxes (ie flaws in the system).

would be good to include distinctions/definitions for terms that are used both in technical ways in philosophy AND more loosely in common language! skepticism in our everyday world is actually very reasonable -it is the stance that we should not just accept claims without evidence or sound reasoning, and is related to a scientific worldview, that is specifically skeptical about religious, supernatural and magical claims. this is contrasted with what i think of as extreme or even freshman skepticism of the kind that (for example) many proponents of the paranormal utilize by saying that they are the true skeptics, because their skepticism about science and the supposed conspiracy of scientific materialism to cover up paranormal research, the plausibility of god etc is actually more "open minded" and "skeptical" about what can be known and whether or not evidence trumps anecdote and experiential convictions.

What makes it a good or bad case? I say that what you refer to as a bad case is actually better than the "good case"

Summary of the responses. Descartes: I think, therefore I exist as a thinking substance. And God, by the way, must exist in order that we, as thinking substances, can think of others thinking substances, math, logic and, sometimes, when God is possibly distracted, about sometimes false things and sometimes true things. Russell: Everything could be deceived but it´s unlikely according to some common sense interpretation of statistics and simplicity. Moore: I have hands, therefore I exist.

Imagine if we taught extreme forms of skepticism in childhood, it was a normal part of the cultural zeitgeist, and we normalized it. Would it be as disturbing as it seems to be to many people? How much of this discomfort is due to the evaporation of our indoctrinated values in the face of skepticism?

I think at least some of the problem of skepticism comes from the problem of language. Do I know my hand is in front of me? Yes! But the very next question this observation raises is, What is my hand? See, how we answer the first question depends upon how we define our terms. If I define the term, "my hand" as the object within my visual perception which, to my perception, has five digits and a palm, connected to an arm, connected to my torso (or those things within my perception that I call arm and torso), then the belief that my hand is in front of my face is a true belief within the parameters of that definition. Extending the question of knowledge to the absolute is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether or not there actually is an absolute reality in which an absolute "my hand" exists. What matters is that my experience of what I call "my hand" is consistent with my definitions of the objects of my perception.

Can someone tell me why she spelled "skeptical" as "sceptical" at 5:33? made me skeptical of this video

You don't really have an infinite idea. You have an idea of infinity that can come out of a finite being.

Great content! If I may give some constructive criticism, I found the echo distracting and the fake drawing animation is a but repetitive. I subscribed and am looking forward to the next one.

very impressive introductions to philosophy.. i wonder if u bring up munchaussen trilemma and the problem of the criterion later on.

From my point of view, one problem here is that there is an underlaying assumption that knowledge only comes from something real and that real = objective, materialistic experience, is it possible that real also equals subjective experience ? Another assumption in this video is that objective/materialistic = commonality of subjectivity, is that always the case ? ; )

Descartes' use of the flawed ontological argument for the existence of god completely undermines his argument beyond 'Cogito ergo sum'.

Pragmatism works for me. What matters to me is being able to navigate my experiences in such a way that I can mitigate or avoid unwanted outcomes. I think knowledge SHOULD have some doubt in it as subjectivity itself leaves all manner of conceivable, if not demonstrable or falsifiable, ways in which any knowledge claim MIGHT be wrong. Its like the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it doesn't matter. I think this all hinges on definitions of " reality" and "knowledge". Absolutist definitions serve man little, if any, purpose, because we are finite subjects who cannot ever fully isolate and identify " pure reality" or "absolute knowledge". I mean, a single conceivable way a knowledge claim might be wrong, defeats even the concept of absolute knowledge. I prefer to define knowledge as familiarity gained through experience, and not as justified true belief, which is still far better than the presupposition a list approach too knowledge, which is some proposition of which one cannot be wrong about, even conceivably, else one knows nothing. By a presup definition, I would agree, NOi ONE knows ANYTHING in such an absolute way, except, perhaps, that one is having SOME kind of experience.

I'm lazy and tired. Therefore energy, entropy and external world.

You exist because you know you exist as consciousness. You can be without thinking.

I love that there is korean sub!

This is like me saying that I am sure about something, but then again, I might be wrong about this. So I am not sure can I be so sure, but then I know for sure that I am a sure about about the fact that I am sure, but then again, ....

It seems to me that Russell has the only reasonable defense of the three. Descartes's assertion that only infinite beings can think of something that is infinitely prefect is unfounded. Moore's assertion is that we should automatically assume that common sense is true by default without considering that we could be deceived.

Wherever there is thought, there is existence... I have thoughts... existence

Thank you so much for posting these videos Proffersor Nagel!

So the non-Cartesian solutions are to say that common sense is equivalent to knowledge or that intuition is equivalent to knowledge. So basically both of them rely on the idea that there is no such thing as true or higher knowledge/truth/meaning.

descartes believes in plato's forms, but for perfect forms to exist, they couldn't possibly come from an imperfect being, but would have to come from a perfect god. therefore, god is real;

For me, I figured that if we can't measure it, sense it, reason it, or otherwise confirm that something exists in our current sphere of reality, why worry about it? If I am hallucinating and I am actually about to walk off a cliff, unless there is some way for me to detect that exact problem, there is literally nothing else I can do about it. Therefore, I feel we should try to find out what we can, try to figure out what is real and fake, what is true and what is not, but not worry about the things we can not prove even exist. I can not prove hell exists, I am not going to worry about it. I can not prove I am not inside a computer simulation (although there has been some interesting study in that area) so why fret about it? If you want to try to logically prove an idea, go for it, but when it is outside the realm of science and understand and probability, take it with a grain of salt. Din't let existensial quandries stop you from enjoying and living your life.

You say "skepticism" like it's a bad thing.

I think that the best answer to the skeptical problem is Husserl's answer, witch turn upside down the problem: if you are speaking about something that is "real" as something that is real by itself, you are not making anithing about proving that that's real. You are just trying to force a metaphisical object (the fact that something's made real by something, like there is something that gives reality by itself) into reality. An answer to skepticism could just be: if the world as you see is not the real world, so what is the real world? Because, with real, i mean "as I see the way I see". If you are saying that there is another criteria for real, you are implying that there is something that give reality reality. You are practically using god for a demonstration, and that's not fair in modern Philosophy

*kicks rock* "I refute it thus!"

Are you related to Thomas Nagel?

I have a different solution. I simply accept that what we reference as the external world IS what we denote as reality regardless of whether such we are in the good or bad case. Thus all points of knowledge that we claim about reality is about whatever construct we actually reside. I am like Moore in that I agree that various hypothetical possibilities are unsound (ridiculous).. However, such point of skepticism are irrelevant, since, regardless of whether what we denote is reality or not, it is all that we can claim. There is also the added dimension of cognitive issues that seem to be ignored in philosophical presentations that is a real issue. This is also dismisses Rene Decartes notions, since, it is clear based on our theological literature that humanity has made up many different God concepts with no reference beyond assertion (at least that I have found thus far) and some would seem to be related to cognitive issues that we have discovered in humanity.

What if there is an all powerful God who wants to be thought of as all good

Judge a tree by the fruit that it bears (pragmatism). What are the practical CONSEQUENCES of believing/opposing skepticism for an individual? "Your world is an illusion." Ok, now what? Should I stop going to work? My circumstances/experiences have not changed. The hypothesis compels no action, and is therefore irrelevant.

I don’t understand how people can take life seriously and see it as meaningful when we can’t even prove the existence of an external world or other minds with confidence. It is cripplingly absurd.

It feels like you should've mentionned a probabilistic approach to epistemology. Something like Bayesian Epistemology...

um, isn't the Evil Genius an Evil Demon?

I know you are skeptical of skepticism, but god fucking damn ;)

It's not rocket science. It's context. If you tell me you saw a black cat walk by, I believe you. A black bear? This I gotta see! A black unicorn? Why'd you wake me up?

How to beat a skeptic. Step 1: Ask them how to believe anything. Step 2: Ask him how to forget something. Step 3: Ask them, "with such authority on the legitimacy of reality, why are your questions considered more of an answer than the answers in consideration to lessoning your questions?" Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 Eventually they may try to change the subject or feel that the conversation is disengenuous, or a mockery. at which point you have 2 choices. Tell them that you are their GOD because you have successfully figured out the total extent as to how they are capable of figuring stuff out and with this information alone you are effectively as capable of deceiving them. If they seem remain insistently skeptical, just tell them "that is exactly what all of us wanted to deceive you into thinking". Now this may seem cruel and dishonesty to the individual but this is entirely their fault.

I reject your premise that skepticism is a problem. I see it as a gift. Please define problem.

By the way, I think you may have a misreading of the butterfly dreaming it is a person. The butterfly represents the spirit, and the human represents to body. The image is that the butterfly person should wake up and realize the essential spirituality, as opposed to the gritty animal nature of being a human. Or something like that. Who wants pie?

What exactly is skepticism challenging?

It's hard to explain why, but even the most basic argumentations of Descartes are wrong. He states, that thinking requires an existing entity, which is thinking. But that's just an idea. It's just an idea, a part of thoughts, that first there must be something existing, and only if there is something existing, it can start to think. But it's totally possible, that there is nothing existing at all and thinking just happens. To whom? To nobody. It just happens. And the idea of existence is also just happening and it's just an idea. Nobody's idea.

What does it mean to exist?

AFAIK ideas don't have size. How could it be infinite?

Nothing new for me in this video. Knew these answers and know that they simply don't do much for me. Common sense doesn't do much for me. Common sense comes from our own state of mind and could be induced, so it can be influenced by the 'evil genius'.

Strange that she didn't discuss the possibility that we are living in a simulation.

Ok someone please explain why i'm stupid. 2:22, this logical progression Generalized counterargument: A finite set Y(human) cannot produce an infinite set X(idea), nor can a finite set Y contain an infinite set X. He claims to be a finite set Y that contains an infinite set X in premise 1, which is invalid. God could not place an infinite set in a finite set at this point because he has used these invalid premises to conclude god must exist before he assumes the god is all powerful.

I am completely new to the Philosophical world... Do you have anything that might help?

It looks as if somehow Russell digressed rather than progressed. But then again, who am I to know what's real and what's not

At roughly 5:30, there is a typo "SCEPTICAL" should be "SKEPTICAL". Well, not a typo, but a consistency issue - you use the k-spelling in most (or all, are there any I didn't catch?) of the video. I know my comment detracts from the content of the video, just wanted to point it out in case you do a revision in the future.

How can someone equate conceiving of the idea of an infinite being with the idea being infinite? LOL

If evil genious is a genious than he/she knows things, if not wouldn't be a genious. Therefore true knowledge exists people, lesson over.

if the skeptical argument was true, then how do you explain the difference between lucid dreaming where you control the environment by thinking about it, and the real world where unexpected things happen all the time.

In my view, we can't really prove that the external world is existent, but that doesn't invalidate the knowledge that we have about this possible external world. To me, knowledge is only true if we can confirm it and we can only confirm it if we can make a prediction based on this knowledge and we can verify it. Since, the only way we can verify anything is through our senses, then it doesn't matter if they are real or not. Once the prediction is verified through our senses, that's all that matters. On the other hand, even if there was another real world that our senses could never access and we tried to make predictions based on certain estimates that could never be verified, then it would not be considered knowledge anyway even if that could be real to another conscience outside the world accessed by our senses.

The Fourth Way: Meditate until you get it....

I don't get DeCartes' position on God. Just because you can think of a God means there is a God because the idea is so great? I dont see how it follows at all.

The evil genius nonetheless has to show you something in order to fool you, so regardless you know that you are seeing something that is real in some sense. The only difficulty lies in the source of said sensory impression which requires an explanation. I have to side with Russel on this one.

Moore is silly for thinking hands are examples of anything, because the whole projection of your ego and experience could be a deception of Descartes' so called "demon". Your bare raw being and existence, something that's in the background of the projected "you", is the only thing that the demon can't touch. For example, your identity and memories and ego could just be a movie playing, but the inner experience has to watch this alleged deception/performance. Your hands are part of the performance, which is proof Moore didn't understand the depth of the problem. Russell's answer is still the best one.

I've got the skepticitis quite bad

We do not have infinite idea, we have endless ideas, there's a huge difference and that throws out his backing up for why god is real and pretty much throws his argument as hogwash. Russell makes a very, very good argument. And I can't believe Moore's actually sounded dumber than the first guy.

My approach is much simpler. "reality" is just a word, we define its meaning, I say that reality is defined through the self, whatever level of existence you exist in, THAT is what is real to you, because it inhabits the same plane of existence. If my hand is just a bunch of electronic signals then that is simply what it means to be real. If I were a videogame character, then that world would be real, and the plane of the player is the strange abstract version of reality.

knowledge is possible only because God exists. If you deny the fact that God exists, then yes, knowledge is impossible.

These arguments are so weak. On a side note: is there anything wrong with being a brain in a vat? Assuming there is nothing you can do about it, why should it be a question of any relevance? Does your life suddenly have less meaning? Please.. what meaning? Entropy will prevail and everything will become nothing eventually. Just enjoy the ride, the one you've been on the whole time, regardless of which carnie is operating the levers.

Evil genius or not, you still physically exist in some capacity, be that as a brain in a vat dreaming or a conscious humanoid. In either case, your thoughts stem from some source that could be defined as physical.