Skeptical Hypotheses Research Articles

Time traveler confirms five minute hypothesis!

Conclusion: What matters for any norm is personal time rather than time. Personal time is a time-like relation (roughly, the time measured by your wristwatch) that knits together scattered temporal parts so that they conform to familiar patterns. David Lewis introduced personal time as an interpretive fiction that allows readers to consistently read fictions about time travelers. Inadvertently, Lewis thereby introduced a metric for all value (including prudence, morality, and aesthetics). Premise: The application of any norm requires personal time rather than time. This principle of reasoning is illustrated by recent debate about Bertrand Russell’s 5 minute hypothesis. This skeptical hypothesis would be undercut if one needs more than 5 minutes to reason about it. But what reasoners actually require is personal time. Once its priority over time is established for the norms governing reasoning, all remaining norms synchronize to personal time. Re-writing diachronic epistemology in Lewis’ atemporal vocabulary salvages much of what is literally true – and exposes the primacy of causation.

Sceptical hypotheses and subjective indistinguishability

Abstract The notion of subjective indistinguishability has long played a central role in explanations of the force of Cartesian sceptical hypotheses. I argue that sceptical hypotheses do not need to be subjectively indistinguishable to be compelling and I provide an alternative diagnosis of their force that explains why this is the case. My diagnosis focuses on the relation between one's experiences and third-personal accounts of the circumstances in which these experiences occur. This relation is characterized by a distinctive gap that leaves room for questions about the nature of one's circumstances, providing sceptical hypotheses with a foothold. I argue that this gap lends sceptical hypotheses their force and renders the stipulation of subjective indistinguishability unnecessary.

The Debasing Demon Resurrected

Abstract The aim of this paper is to strike a blow for the relevance of the debasing demon originally summoned by Jonathan Schaffer. I do so by, first, defending this skeptical hypothesis against critics and, second, by noting important similarities between the workings of this demon and implicit bias. Along the way, I elucidate the structure of this skeptical argument by comparing it to other better-known skeptical arguments. I also clarify the kinds of access the debasing skeptical scenario, as well as some of the replies, operate with. Apart from being interesting in its own right as a different skeptical challenge, the debasing demon raises important issues regarding bias, as I will show by using an example from epistemic decolonialization.

Scepticism, evidential holism and the logic of demonic deception

AbstractSceptical arguments in epistemology typically employ sceptical hypotheses, which are rivals to our everyday beliefs so constructed that they fit exactly the evidence on which those beliefs are based. There are two ways of using a sceptical hypothesis to undermine an everyday belief, giving rise to two distinct sorts of sceptical argument: underdetermination‐based and closure‐based. However, both sorts of argument, as usually formulated in the literature, fall foul of evidential holism, for they ignore the crucial role of background beliefs. An analogy with the philosophy of science makes this point explicit. There is no simple way to “holism proof” the two sceptical arguments.

The Relationship between Democracy and Economic Growth in the Path of Sustainable Development

Democracy has both a direct and an indirect relationship with sustainable development. Democracy is related to the movement toward long-term economic development directly, and indirectly, democracy can provide the means to create the institutional structures needed to create links between the political systems, the culture of participation, and the social values of a society. Since economic development is a multidimensional concept and one of its primary requirements is to achieve a high level of income and appropriate economic growth, knowing the relationship between democracy and economic growth is especially important for policymakers. Many important questions are raised about the relationship between democracy and economic performance. What is the relationship between democracy and economic growth? Is this relationship different in developed countries and developing countries? Considering the effects of democracy and economic growth on the welfare of communities, the main purpose of this study was to investigate the causal relationship between democracy and economic growth from 1990–2020 for the OECD and selected developing countries. The results showed that the conflict and skeptical hypotheses had been established in OECD and developing countries, respectively. It was concluded that the pattern of economic growth and development in OECD countries differed from that in developing countries. For OECD countries, real per capita GDP growth was mainly affected by previous per capita GDP growth, and the effect of democracy on per capita economic growth was negative. Moreover, the results indicated that in developing countries, democracy alone had not triggered economic growth and that real per capita GDP growth depended on other important structural variables such as social and physical infrastructure.

Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What it Explains

<i>Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What it Explains</i>

Confusion, Understanding and Success

Abstract The present paper examines a type of sceptical hypothesis put forward by Adam Carter that specifically targets understanding—the Confusion Hypothesis. After clarifying the nature and scope of that hypothesis, it discusses Carter’s favoured virtue perspectivist answer to the challenge it raises. It is argued that this answer is ultimately unsatisfying as it is unable to explain how a subject can obtain assurance that her grasp of a given body of information actually results from the competences she comes to appreciate as being reliable. A different answer that relies on the practical dimension of the specific grasp involved in understanding is then offered and is shown to avoid the problems faced by Virtue Perspectivism.

Locke's Skeptical Realism

In this paper I contend that Locke is both a realist and a skeptic regarding the mind-independent bodies which are causally responsible for our ideas of sense. Although he frequently indicates that we have experiential knowledge of these bodies, I argue that this was not his considered position. In support of this conclusion I turn: first, to the basic contours of his accounts of knowledge and perception; second, to his argument for the existence of the material world; and third, to his discussions of judgment and probability. Locke’s considered position, I contend, is that instances of veridical perception do not yield genuine instances of knowledge. Rather, these perceptual encounters give rise to empirical judgments which enjoy a high degree of probability. While this prevents them from being suitable objects of knowledge, since Locke thinks that we can be nearly certain of their truth, he contends that we should not hesitate to think, speak and act as if they were instances of knowledge. I further argue that this account provides us with a more satisfying explanation of Locke’s dismissive attitude towards the skeptical hypotheses which appear throughout the Essay.

A‐Rational Epistemological Disjunctivism

AbstractAccording to epistemological disjunctivism (ED), in paradigmatic cases of perceptual knowledge, a subject,S, has perceptual knowledge thatpin virtue of being in possession of reasons for her belief thatpwhich are both factive and reflectively accessible toS. It has been argued that ED is better placed than both knowledge internalism and knowledge externalism to undercut underdetermination‐based skepticism. I identify several principles that must be true if ED is to be uniquely placed to attain this goal. After that, I use those principles to formulate a diachronic skeptical argument. This argument yields the counterintuitive conclusion that understanding a global skeptical hypothesis is all it takes for a rational subject to lose all her perceptual knowledge of the world. Next, I show that a popular Austinian move must reject one or another of the principles that underlie ED. I close by delineating a novel strategy that can block the diachronic skeptical argument while preserving all the principles. The key idea is that perceptual knowledge is grounded in primitive, perceptual and recognitional abilities. This view sheds new light on some puzzling features of global skepticism that have been noted by Descartes and Hume, among others.

The Resurrection of Jesus: An Engagement with Dale Allison: A Review Essay

In his latest book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Dale Allison states that, while he personally believes that Jesus resurrected, “the purely historical evidence is not, on my view, so good as to make disbelief unreasonable, and it is not so bad as to make faith untenable.” This review focuses on Allison’s discussion concerning apparitions, hallucination theory, mass hysteria, and pareidolia. While appreciative of various aspects of Allison’s work, this article points out various problems with Allison’s use of materials in other disciplines, a number of fallacies of reasoning in Allison’s analyses, and demonstrates that the best skeptical hypothesis against Jesus’s resurrection suggested by Allison is untenable.

Objective Bayesianism and the Abductivist Response to Scepticism

AbstractAn important line of response to scepticism appeals to the best explanation. But anti-sceptics have not engaged much with work on explanation in the philosophy of science. I plan to investigate whether plausible assumptions about best explanations really do favour anti-scepticism. I will argue that there are ways of constructing sceptical hypotheses in which the assumptions do favour anti-scepticism, but the size of the support for anti-scepticism is small.

Scepticism and semantic externalism

In this paper, I analyze the anti-skeptical strategy based on Putnam?s semantic externalism, and developed by, among others, Brueckner and Forbes. Popularity of this strategy is stifled by its seeming reliance on question-begging arguments. My aim is to show that these arguments do not, in fact, beg the question. I do that by emphasizing independent theoretical backing of semantic externalism and disquotational principle that the premises of semantic versions of the relevant arguments rely on. In order to shed light both on the sources of the impression that something is wrong with this anti-skeptical strategy, and on the reasons why this impression is ultimately misleading, I derive implications of soundness of the relevant arguments for our understanding of, previously unacknowledged, relationship between skeptical hypotheses and the language used to formulate them. Among these implications is a very significant fact that the way our language relates to reality, if the thesis of semantic externalism is correct, effectively blocks a certain type of very popular global skeptical strategies by depriving the skeptic of conceptual resources needed for formulating the scenarios appropriate for his aims.

Disentangling Cartesian Global Skepticism from Cartesian Problematic External-World Idealism in Kant’s Refutation

Abstract Kant’s Refutation targets what he calls the problematic idealist. This is understood by the mainstream of Kantian scholarship as the global skeptic that Descartes briefly adumbrated in his first Meditation. The widespread view in the literature is that the fate of the Refutation is tied to its success as an argument against this Cartesian global skepticism. This consensus is what I want to question in this paper. I argue that Kant’s opponent – the problematic idealist – is not the Cartesian global skeptic, but rather what I prefer to call here the Cartesian problematic external-world idealist. According to Cartesian global skepticism we cannot know whether our commonsensical beliefs are true until we rule out the skeptical hypotheses are false. In contrast, the Cartesian external-world idealist sees as problematic the assumption that the underlying nature of outer things of which we have ideas is mind-independent rather than caused by our own thinking being. My aim here is to disentangle Cartesian global skepticism from Cartesian problematic external-word idealism and show that, if measured against global skepticism, Kant’s Refutation is doomed to fail; while against problematic idealism, it is at least a promising argument.

Précis of The Appearance of Ignorance: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 2

The Appearance of Ignorance develops and champions contextualist solutions to the puzzles of skeptical hypotheses and of lotteries. It is argued that, at least by ordinary standards for knowledge, we do know that skeptical hypotheses are false, and that we’ve lost the lottery. Accounting for how it is that we know that skeptical hypotheses are false and why it seems that we don’t know that they’re false tells us a lot, both about what knowledge is and how knowledge attributions work. Along the way, the following are all explained and defended: Moorean methodological approaches to skepticism, on which one seeks to defeat, rather than refute, the skeptic; contextualist responses to skepticism; contextualist substantive Mooreanism; the basic safety approach to knowledge and the double-safety picture of what knowledge is; insensitivity accounts of various appearances of ignorance; the closure principle for knowledge; and the claim that our knowledge that we are not brains in vats is a priori, despite its being knowledge of a deeply contingent fact.

The Disappearance of Ignorance

Keith DeRose’s new book The Appearance of Ignorance is a welcome companion volume to his 2009 book The Case for Contextualism. Where latter focused on contextualism as a view in the philosophy of language, the former focuses on how contextualism contributes to our understanding of (and solution to) some perennial epistemological problems, with the skeptical problem being the main focus of six of the seven chapters. DeRose’s view is that a solution to the skeptical problem must do two things. First, it must explain how it is that we can know lots of things, such as that we have hands. Second, it must explain how it can seem that we don’t know these things. In slogan form, DeRose’s argument is that a contextualist semantics for knowledge attributions is needed to account for the “appearance of ignorance”—the appearance that we don’t know that skeptical hypotheses fail to obtain. In my critical discussion, I will argue inter alia that we don’t need a contextualist semantics to account for the appearance of ignorance, and in any case that the “strength” of the appearance of ignorance is unclear, as is the need for a philosophical diagnosis of it.

Many High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials in Sports Physical Therapy Are Making False-Positive Claims of Treatment Effect: A Systematic Survey.

To examine the risk of false-positive reporting within high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the sports physical therapy field. Cross-sectional. We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for parallel-design, 2-arm RCTs reporting positive treatment effects, based on null-hypothesis significance testing, and scoring greater than 6/10 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. No restrictions were made on pathology, intervention, or outcome variables. Sixty-two of 212 RCTs reported positive effects in at least 1 outcome variable. We estimated false-positive risk (FPR) with an online calculator, based on number of participants, P value, and effect size. For each study, FPR was estimated using a range of prior probability assumptions: 0.2 (skeptical hypothesis), 0.5, and 0.8 (optimistic hypothesis). We calculated the FPR associated with 189 statistically significant findings (P<.05) reported across 44 trials. The median FPR was 9% (25th-75th percentile, 2%-24%). Sixty-three percent of statistically significant results (119/189) had an FPR greater than 5%, and 18% (35/189) had an FPR greater than 50%. Changing the prior probability from skeptical to optimistic reduced the median FPR from 29% (25th-75th percentile, 9%-56%) to 2% (25th-75th percentile, 0.6%-7.0%). High-quality RCTs using null-hypothesis significance testing often overestimated treatment effects. The median FPR was 9%: in 1 in 10 trials, the researchers falsely concluded that there was a treatment effect. Future RCTs in sports physical therapy should be informed by prestudy odds and a minimum FPR estimation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(2):104-109. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9264.

Non-reductive safety

Safety principles in epistemology are often hailed as providing us with an explanation of why we fail to have knowledge in Gettier cases and lottery examples, while at the same time allowing for the fact that we know the negations of sceptical hypotheses. In a recent paper, Sinhababu and Williams have produced an example-the Backward Clock-that is meant to spell trouble for safety accounts of knowledge. I argue that the Backward Clock case is, in fact, unproblematic for the more sophisticated formulations of safety in the literature. However, I then proceed to construct two novel examples that turn out problematic for those formulations-one that provides us with a lottery-style case of safe ignorance and one that is a straightforward case of unsafe knowledge. If these examples succeed, then safety as it is usually conceived in the current debate cannot account for ignorance in all Gettier and lottery-style cases, and neither is it a necessary condition for knowledge. I conclude from these troublesome examples that modal epistemologists ought to embrace a much more simple and non-reductive version of safety, according to which the notion of similarity between possible worlds that determines in which worlds the subject must believe truly is an epistemic notion that cannot be defined or reduced to notions independent of knowledge. The resulting view is shown to also lead to desirable results with respect to lottery cases, certain quantum phenomena, and a puzzling case involving a cautious brain-in-a-vat.

Contextualism and closure

Skepticism confronts us with a paradox (sometimes known as “the skeptical trilemma”), a version of which follows: (1) I know that I am working on a computer right now; (2) I know that knowing that I am working on a computer right now logically implies that I am not being deceived or manipulated in the way that skeptical hypotheses imagine. (This implication is called “closure under known logical implication”); (3) I do not or cannot know that I am not being deceived or manipulated in the way skeptical hypotheses imagine. The paradox of skepticism is that these three statements are logically incompatible. A relatively new movement in epistemology called contextualism proposes that we can accept all three of the claims in the trilemma, by recognizing that they are not all true within the same epistemic context. Briefly, contextualists claim that we can know in ordinary contexts, but cannot know that we are not being deceived or manipulated in a skeptical scenario, but the latter fact is true in a different epistemic context than the ordinary knowledge that we might have. Closure under known logical implication will remain true, but only insofar as the implications involved are alternatives that belong to the same epistemic context as the original knowledge claim. In this paper, I claim that contextualism’s account of how epistemological contexts change, together with its acceptance of closure, is implausible.

Arational belief convergence

This model explores consensus among agents in a population in terms of two properties. The first is a probability of belief change (PBC). This value indicates how likely agents are to change their mind in interactions. The other is the size of the agents audience: the proportion of the population the agent has access to at any given time. In all instances, the agents converge on a single belief, although the agents are arational. I argue that this generates a skeptical hypothesis: any instance of purportedly rational consensus might just as well be a case of arational belief convergence. I also consider what the model tells us about increasing the likelihood that one agent’s belief is adopted by the rest. Agents are most likely to have their beliefs adopted by the entire population when their value for PBC is low relative to the rest of the population and their audience sizes are roughly three-quarters of the largest possible audience. I further explore the consequences of dogmatists to the population; individuals who refuse to change their mind end up polarizing the population. I conclude with reflections on the supposedly special character of rationality in belief-spread.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL DISJUNCTIVISM: NEO-WITTGENSTEINIAN AND MODERATE NEO-MOOREAN

ABSTRACTDuncan Pritchard proposes a biscopic solution to the problem of radical skepticism, which consists in epistemological disjunctivism and a theory about the limits of rational evaluation inspired by Wittgenstein's On Certainty. According to the latter theory, we cannot have rationally grounded knowledge of the denials of radical skeptical hypotheses, a consequence that Pritchard finds attractive insofar as he thinks that claims to know the falsity of radical skeptical hypotheses are epistemically immodest. I argue that there is room for a neo-Moorean to dispute Pritchard's argument for the Wittgensteinian proposal and I raise some doubts about its underlying motivation. Finally, I put forward an alternative, which I call “moderate neo-Moorean epistemological disjunctivism.” While this theory contends that we possess rationally grounded anti-skeptical knowledge, it also allows for a degree of epistemic modesty, by conceding that perceptual knowledge never amounts to knowledge that is absolutely certain.