Agrippan Skepticism (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 06, 2011, 16:23 (4565 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: David has on a few occasions pointed to psychic phenomenon as some level of evidence for *something* out there that can't/doesn't have a materialistic explanation. In my world, I hold to a form of Agrippan Skepticism, notably, "The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything." This means that I deny, as knowledge, those things that we cannot verify or replicate. So far this agrees wholly with the materialistic position. In fact, we can say it underpins my materialistic slant.

Back to epistemology. After much debate, we agreed to define knowledge as “information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it.” We distinguished between that and absolute truth, which is unattainable. I think Agrippan scepticism refers to what we have called truth, and your own to knowledge as we have defined it. We also agreed to define belief as: “information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.” Clearly, then, psychic phenomena cannot be characterized as “knowledge” since there is no general consensus. They come under the category of belief.

Agrippan Skepticism is directly targeted at knowledge, not truth. It's fundamental claim is that we can know nothing, except for the fact that we know nothing. A special thanks to a wonderful book on epistemology from Michael Williams. (I've shared it here previously.)

As I had said here previously in starting the original framework thread, the fundamental difference between David, myself, and you, is "What bucket do we place certain kinds of claims?"

In the realm of general discussion, I have no problem engaging in discussions involving psychic experiences, etc.

But... if our goal is to discuss "What really happened," insofar as this entire site is devoted--then by definition our search is one concerning knowledge. And if we agree that certain paths do not or cannot lead us to knowledge, then I posit we can quite safely exclude them from consideration. In fact, I think we're obligated to do so.

I hope this phrases a majority of my difficulties in a more clear light that I have achieved in the past. (Most fail-tastically in the framework thread.)

MATT: What is it about "psychic phenomenon" that proves an Agrippan Skeptic is not on firm ground? Why shouldn't we deny unproven claims outright? Why should we even entertain them?

We need to decide what claims we’re being sceptical about, and at what stage our scepticism sets in. I suggest we confine the discussion to those instances in which people obtain information not normally available to them and verified by witnesses or by circumstances. We’ve discussed examples given to us by BBella, David’s wife and DragonsHeart, and published by Pim van Lommel. If you don’t believe the information was obtained (“unproven claims”) and are convinced that they’re all liars or deluded, the discussion ends at the first stage. If you accept that they obtained the information, your scepticism applies to non-materialistic explanations – the second stage.

But see above... how do these events take us towards more knowledge? How do they truly frame the discussion in a rational and meaningful way? These are two questions that burn me every time I read about events like this. Again, because I am such a 'radical' skeptic.

MATT: This comes as the core of my own philosophy of "utility." An explanation, that lacks some level of "provability," is not useful. Not if our goal is to advance knowledge.

Virtually all the major issues that we discuss on this forum are linked to phenomena that can’t be proved. We can’t prove that there is/isn’t a god, that life originated by chance/design. On a human level of everyday life we can’t explain love or imagination or aesthetic beauty in provable materialistic terms, but do we deny their existence or “utility”? Interestingly, I don’t think Pim van Lommel, BBella, David’s wife or DragonsHeart have actually offered any definite "supernatural" theories. But since no-one has yet succeeded in finding a materialistic explanation for such phenomena, and since the examples can be multiplied millions of times over, why reject outright the explanation that there may be “something out there”? You don’t have to accept it, but why make up your mind to reject it before you’ve been offered proof of a materialistic explanation? Agrippan scepticism – according to my sources – calls for a suspension of judgement, i.e. neither to affirm nor to deny.

I think what I said in my second paragraph here answers more about my difficulty: the issue isn't one of 'denying' (bad word decision on my part) but about excluding due to futility... futility again at being able to gain knowledge.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"