|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I'm saying that acting as if things are most likely the case is most likely easier than constantly thinking that nothing is real and you don't know anything. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take many things for granted. Things like gravity, mathematics, etc.
Everything is irrational when you get down to it. Thinking there is no knowledge is quite irrational. Irrationality/skepticism/etc is definitely an interesting idea, and I am fond of Schrödinger/Heisnberg/Brain in a vat etc, but in the end it's academic bullshit and not really helpful in living day-to-day.
And I would argue that my pragmatic response is actually true (and I know it's to be true), because it is much quicker to write "something is the case" than "something is most likely the case." Therefore, it's easier. If I had to say 'most likely the case' all the time, it would take up quite a bit of time. |
it depends what you're doing really. If its a philisophical or scientific investigation its irresponsible to be 'ok' with likelihood when the whole point of it is to achieve certainty (even if the certainty reached is that there can't be certainty). Problem with most philisophical and scientific investigations is it takes the everyday things we take for granted (we're probably right) as Knowledge. That's what the book is disputing. I don't disagree that its easier to say something is most likely the case in casual situations though.
It depends on what concepts we're using and the terms anyway, but the point is most people DO NOT think that nothing can be known (philosophy and science try to prove, not just looks for probabilities), and the pragmatic thing isn't really good enough for challenging sceptical problems, since its just a really weak epistemological cop out anyway...
___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-
|
