I believe that skepticism is very appropriate to achieving the most objective and unbiased truth if taken moderately. While radical skepticism continues to stand on its ground, we as rational people need not to be so radical simply due to the dilemma that arises within. For once radical skepticism is admitted as being valid, and then all our effort and science would have to reduce to nothing. As David Humes claims, we still rely on philosophy to examine our ideas despite philosophy comes from “illusions or imaginations” of humans. While in Michael’s article Humes claims that philosophers are disposed to doing philosophy, it is a contradiction of philosophy itself in also claiming that we have free will. If we have free will, then philosophers need not to question too much about whether everything exists outside of our consciousness or that radically skepticism holds true under some conditions. For mere acts of claiming nothing is certain they are going against the principles of free will, which they are exerting and taking the liberty of claiming that everything is illusory. In doing so they are exerting free will already, yet claiming their free will does not exist. According to philosophy, our free will exists indeterminately and moreover, to say that they are “disposed” to philosophy is outright ridiculous. This argument of “relying on philosophy from illusion and imaginations” of our mind is circular, and whist philosophers are stuck with questioning the very fundamentals of knowledge we are not able to make neither scientific, nor philosophical advancements. On the other hand, whether true or false our epistemological doctrines so far have proven quite effective, and as far as this “dilemma” goes, our contemporary science has done well to make our lives easier. I think that suffices enough to prove that our knowledge has been veracious, and there is no need for us to inquire whether they exist because modern physics have produced digital entertainments and TVs, and that alone shows us how true the principles of physics were at the time whist this philosophy of skepticism thrived. There is no question needed to examine the veracity of such knowledge because they proved to be true. In Michael’s article, David Humes’ quotation comes out rather well established. “Refin’d reflections provide no tolerable aspect of arriving at truth or certainty”. His quotation alone reveals the well-examined futility of inquiring the fundamentals of knowledge, and while moderate skepticism serves to identify errors in arguments, radical skepticism, or belief that nothing exists in this world is too huge a claim to be considered valid nor is it a virtuous view of this world given all we have worked hard to cultivate. All in all, skeptical conclusions, while entitled to being “hypotheses” will not be used for constructive results. While skeptical philosophers enjoy the privilege of holding such claims, and perhaps feeling superior over others in being radical, it is obvious that even if proved true, no part of such claim shall be used for productive good of humanity. For how are we to use such claims to improving our knowledge, let alone making a leap in science? All it would do is embed a sense of doubt and uncertainty in people, especially in science, and would give rise to intellectual decadence and breakdown of civilization. Therefore, at its best, skepticism exists for the benefits of science in identifying errors, and as such, should not be overdone.
I would like your insight on my arguments where I may have fallacious claims
Aha. I remember now first person view implies uncertainty
all in all is sort of a childish transition
also it would be nice if you somehow defined radical skepticism as opposed to regular skepticism
Ok. I'll avoid that phrase from here on out.