Agrippan Skepticism (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, November 07, 2011, 08:39 (4564 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: 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. […] 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.

If the only thing we can know is that we know nothing, there is no path that can lead us to knowledge, and so according to your logic we’re obligated to exclude from consideration all explanations of everything. Here endeth the discussion. That is why in the epistemology thread you and I agreed to distinguish between knowledge (relative, but I won’t repeat our definition), and truth (absolute), which is unknowable. In most of the fields we discuss, the best we can hope for as individuals is explanations that will convince us personally – on the grounds of likelihood, not certainty. That is where belief enters our vocabulary, and why we spent so long thrashing out our definitions!

MATT: ...how do these events [psychic experiences such as NDEs and OBEs] 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.

If by knowledge you mean absolute truth (see above), they don’t. Trust Agrippa, and give up all quests. But if you accept that certain people have acquired information in a manner we can’t explain, and that phenomena such as consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination (not to mention life) have so far also defied all science’s attempts to explain them, you should recognize that no theory (e.g. it’s all a matter of brain activity) has any authority and therefore it’s possible that other theories (e.g. there are forms of energy beyond the reach of science) may be true. There are strange goings-on in the universe, and scientists theorize that they may be due to unknown and maybe unknowable forms of matter and energy which they call “dark”. Have you excluded these (and all theories concerning the unknowable origin of the universe and of life) from consideration? If not, why is it futile to consider consciousness, subconsciousness, and the strange psychic goings-on experienced by generations of humans, as possible signs of unknown and maybe unknowable forms of energy? Your leaning towards materialism is in defiance of Agrippa, so kindly stand straight.

MATT: ...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.

Once again, according to your idea of scepticism, all discussions and research projects are futile and should be excluded, because all we can know is that we know nothing. Excluding is just as decisive as denying. If you are a truly “radical” Agrippan sceptic, you will suspend judgement, and that does not allow for exclusion, which is already a judgement. But don’t misunderstand me. I too have thresholds. There are some beliefs on which I do not suspend my judgement and which I do exclude from consideration: Russell’s teapot, Santa Claus, fairies at the bottom of my garden. It’s all a matter of degree, and that boils down to subjective criteria – another crucial feature of any discussion on epistemology. If you acknowledge that your exclusion of psychic phenomena is based upon your subjective preference for materialism, and if you drop your attempts to justify it through your all-exclusive, nihilistic and ultimately contradictory concept of knowledge and your insistence on denying utility, rationalism and meaning to anything non-scientific, we shall be able to shake hands and approach the subject usefully, rationally and meaningfully. Here beginneth the discussion!