The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Cancelled by Instigator
Open Debate

Is Skepticism Reasonable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Cancelled
This debate was cancelled by the Instigator. If you are Anaxa, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Cancelled by Instigator
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 30678
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




My argument will revolve around the forum discussion here:


I don't mean methodological skepticism, that's a virtue which leads to avoiding naivete. And I don't mean skepticism as a state of mind, that's a vice that leads to cynicism. Rather I mean Knowledge skepticism of 4 types:

1) Global skepticism - there exists no propositional knowledge in any area of human thought

2) Unmitigated skepticism- Any alleged propositional knowledge isn't a case of propositional knowledge

2.1) Strong Unmitigated skepticism: no proposition can be known

2.2) Mild Unmitigated skepticism: propositions are possible known but none actually are

2.3) Weak Unmitigated skepticism: no propositions are known with certainty

3) 1st-Order skepticism- rejects beliefs about external world, e.g., there is a tree / mercy is good...

4) Sensory knowledge of the external world

These types of skepticism, I'll argue that they're unreasonable.

In my critique of skepticism, my focus will simply be to rebut skepticism, that is, to show that skepticism arguments fail to establish that people don’t have propositional knowledge. This places a burden of proof on the skeptic, and expresses at least initial confidence in our cognitive faculties, and so within the absence of an defeaters for those faculties, we're prima facie justified in believing in propositional knowledge, and therefore believing that skepticism is unreasonable.

Rebutting Skepticism

Christian Faith

Here I'll argue that the faith has successfully rebutted the skeptic. Even though I'm a secularist.

Arguments of Skepticism

Argument from Past Error
(1) Past error implies present skepticism
(2) There exists past error
(3) Therefore, we should be present skeptics

Argument from Error’s Possibility

(1) It's Possible to be a brain in a vat, and so no propositional knowledge can obtain
(2) It’s possible
(3) Therefore, there's no propositional knowledge

Argument from Justification Transfer

Justification for present propositional knowledge implies that it’s not extended beyond present propositional knowledge.

Criterion Problem

1) What’s the content & extent of our knowledge?
2) What’s the criteria for knowledge?

Here I'll have to provide solutions to the problem. On top of all this, I'll have to deal with further arguments my opponent proposes.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.