Underdetermination Skepticism and Skeptical Dogmatism

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The Mundane World Hypothesis (mwh) says that we have material bodies, we have brains located inside our bodies, we have sense organs which process visual information, the direct cause of our perceptual judgments is typically macroscopic material objects, and we live in a material world. Skeptics using underdetermination arguments argue mwh has no more epistemic merit than some skeptical competitor, e.g., that we are in the Matrix. Since such competitor hypotheses are equipollent, we are not justified in believing mwh. This paper takes the underdetermination skeptic’s premises to a more radical conclusion: skeptical dogmatism, which is the view that mwh is probably false based on the idea that there are many equipollent competitors to mwh.

Underdetermination Skepticism and Skeptical Dogmatism

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism

Sections

References

AlstonW. P. (1989). Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

BeebeJ. (2009). “The Abductivist Reply to SkepticismPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 3: 605636.

BergmanM. (2006). Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BonJourL. & SosaS. (2003). Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism Foundations vs. Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell.

BruecknerA. (1994). “The Structure of the Skeptical ArgumentPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 827835.

ChalmersD. (2009). “The Matrix as Metaphysics3352 in SchneiderS. (ed.) Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence. Oxford: Blackwell.

ChisholmR. M. (1989). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

ConeeE. & FeldmanR. (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.

DavidsonD. (2006). The Essential Davidson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DescartesR. (1993). Meditations on First Philosophy in Focus. New York: Routledge.

FoleyR. (1983). “Epistemic ConservatismPhilosophical Studies 43: 165182.

FumertonR. (1992). “Skepticism and Reasoning to the Best ExplanationPhilosophical Issues 2: 149169.

———. (2005). “The Challenge of Refuting Skepticism8697 in Steup & Sosa (2005).

GoldmanA. (2007). “The Underdetermination Argument for Brain-in-the-Vat ScepticismAnalysis 67: 3236.

GoldmanA. (1979). “What Is Justified Belief?” 123 in PappasG. (ed.) Justification and Knowledge.Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

———. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

GrecoJ. (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HájekA. (2007). “My Philosophical Position Says ‘p’ and I Don’t Believe ‘p’217231 in GreenM.& WilliamsJ. (eds.) Moore’s Paradox: New Essays on Belief Rationality and the First Person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HarperA. (2010). “Fallibilism, Contextualism and Second-Order SkepticismPhilosophical Investigations 33: 339359.

HazewinkelM. (1995). Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

HazlettA. (2006). “How to Defeat Belief in the External WorldPacific Philosophical Quarterly 87: 198212.

KantI. (1969). Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Bedford Books.

KeynesJ. (2004). A Treatise on Probability. New York: Dover Publications.

KuhnT. (1977). The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.

MatesB. (1996).  The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empiricus’sOutlines of Pyrrhonism. New York: Oxford University Press.

NozickR. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

PlantingaA. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press.

PritchardD. (2005a). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. (2005b). “The Structure of Sceptical ArgumentsPhilosophical Quarterly 55: 3752.

———. (2012). Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PryorJ. (2000). “The Skeptic and the DogmatistNoûs 34: 517549.

PutnamH. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’215271 in his Mind Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1981). Reason Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RussellB. (1921). The Analysis of Mind. Hove: Psychology Press.

SklarL. (1975). “Methodological Conservatism.” The Philosophical Review:374400.

SorensenR. (2004). “Commercial Applications of Pyrrhonianism208232 in ArmstrongS.(ed.) Pyrrhonian Skepticism. New York: Oxford University Press.

SteupM. & SosaE. (eds.). (2005). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.

SwinburneR. (1997). Simplicity as Evidence of Truth. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

VogelJ. (1990). “Cartesian Skepticism and Inference to the Best ExplanationJournal of Philosophy 87: 658666.

———. (2005). “The Refutation of Skepticism7284 in Steup & Sosa (2005).

WinklerK. P. (1989). Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

21

I have in mind passages in Kant (1969) like those that can be found at Bxxvi A251–2 and B306. Nothing in my argument turns on whether this is the correct understanding of Kant or not I’m simply referring to a common understanding of Kant. If this is the wrong understanding of things in themselves then imagine this is a conception of things in themselves put forward by the imaginary (and more positive) philosopher Kan.

29

 See Pritchard (2005a) for an overview of these forms of externalism.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 16 16 7
Full Text Views 11 11 11
PDF Downloads 4 4 4
EPUB Downloads 2 2 2