Comments on: Let’s All Become Skeptics Now

By: Micah Tillman » Blog Archive » Is “Balance” to Blame for Non-Arguments?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:08:07 +0000

[...] me. I’m the only one who remembers. [...]

By: Andrew Stevens

Andrew Stevens — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:28:45 +0000

I don’t know; I think Seb is being far too cynical. The fact that there aren’t many people interested in objective, qualitative comparison doesn’t mean that there aren’t any people so interested. And it’s simply false to say that everyone’s mind is made up the second they see a candidate. That isn’t even true for the most partisan of observers, nevertheless the 40% of people who are not particularly partisan.

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:09:59 +0000

*grin*

Excellent points, both o’ y’all.

By: Seb

Seb — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:07:09 +0000

Let’s not pretend that there exists such a thing as a “disinterested observer” in American politics. No one is interested in objective, qualitative comparison because everyone’s mind is made up the second they see a candidate. There’s an agenda, a bias, a sales pitch, or a dirty secret behind any political statement, so looking for dialectical debate in American politics is like hoping for capitalism to foster liberal democracy in China.

By: Andrew Stevens

Andrew Stevens — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:56:24 +0000

Some of us still believe in Reason, don’t you know. Of course, Descartes’ mistake was in thinking that certainty was an appropriate standard of knowledge, whereas certainty is too much to ask.

Indeed, Descartes is probably one of the reasons for the current gloomy situation you diagnose. Descartes made such a strong argument for skepticism (despite not thinking much of it) and such a weak refutation of it that generations of people have been confused ever since.

The skeptical argument appears strong to us because its premises all seem plausible to us. Many people seem to find it plausible to say that we can’t know something unless we are absolutely certain (indeed, Descartes accepted this point). But if that premise is accepted, skepticism cannot really be defeated (Descartes certainly didn’t defeat it, though he thought he did). And therein lies the problem. Most people accept the premises which lead inexorably to skepticism, but reject the skeptical conclusion. This allows them to apply completely different epistemological standards and is a recipe for intellectual chaos.

E.g. the person comes across an argument which he likes so he applies his loose (non-skeptical) epistemological standards and accepts the argument. Then he comes across an argument which he doesn’t like so he applies his much tighter (skeptical) standard and rejects the argument. This latter is very convenient since skeptical standards can be used to reject any argument. Result? Deadlock. Nobody can convince anybody of anything that they aren’t already predisposed to accept. I should say that I don’t think anyone does this consciously. Most people think they are being quite consistent, but the human capacity for self-deception is vast and subtle and almost everybody applies different standards to those things they are predisposed to accept than those things they are predisposed to reject.