Agrippan Skepticism (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 08, 2011, 00:44 (4763 days ago) @ dhw

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!

Here's the rub however: Agrippan skepticism properly worded (as I did previously) is "The only thing we can be sure of is that we know nothing."

This COMPLETELY changes the power of the position because NOW we need to apply a series of justifications to any claim. The challenge offered by the "Agrippan Trilemma" is that we cannot claim knowledge, if the claim suffers from any one of these three challenges:

1. A brute assertion without any justification and therefore arbitrary

2. A justification that raises a further “why” question, thus resulting in an infinite regress.

3. A justification that presupposes what its supposed to establish and therefore circular.

The problem I have with the order of rank, is that psychic experiences tend to fall in all three categories, depending on the claim.

Obviously, justification is the key to the trilemma.

What means of justification should we apply to the psychic claims under question? What if the people who experienced the event are willing to consider that they suffered an illusion? Does that strengthen or weaken their claim?

I must stress that I really AM in a questioning mood about this and am not trying to argue for argument's sake.

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.

Agrippan skepticism is what I consider the foundation for science, and it is NOT undermining to it. If we know what we can only be sure of--then the rest we're left to iterative experimentation to try and figure the rest out. I've said countless times that scientific explanations are ALL provisional. This Agrippan Skepticism is WHY--because however much we think we learn, we still haven't reached "the end."

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!

I hope, that it is clear that I'm not driving towards a postmodern "nothing exists" kind of slant... but I am saying that Agrippa gives us a tool with which we can even frame a valid question... unless I'm totally off my rocker!

--
\"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.\"