My Ordinary Anti-Sceptical Beliefs Are Not Insensitive

Frontiers of Philosophy in China 14 (3):469-489 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An orthodox sceptical hypothesis claims that one’s belief that “I am not a brain-in-a-vat (BIV)” (or any other ordinary anti-sceptical belief) is insensitive. A form of sensitivity-based scepticism, can thus be constructed by combining this orthodox hypothesis with the sensitivity principle and the closure principle. Unlike traditional solutions to the sensitivity-based sceptical problem, this paper will propose a new solution—one which does not reject either closure or sensitivity. Instead, I argue that sceptics’ assumption that one’s ordinary anti-sceptical beliefs are insensitive will give rise to self-contradiction. The orthodox sceptical hypothesis is thus revealed to be incoherent and arbitrary. Given that there is no coherent reason to presuppose our ordinary anti-sceptical beliefs to be insensitive, the argument for sensitivity-based scepticism can thus be blocked at a lower epistemological cost.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The ‘Default View’ of Perceptual Reasons and ‘Closure-Based’ Sceptical Arguments.Genia Schönbaumsfeld - 2017 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 7 (2):114-135.
A Davidsonian Response to Radical Scepticism.Ju Wang - 2015 - Logos and Episteme 6 (1):95-111.
Closure and Underdetermination Again.Ju Wang - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (4):1129-1140.
The Structure of Sceptical Arguments.Duncan Pritchard - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):37 - 52.
Radical Scepticism Without Epistemic Closure.Sven Rosenkranz - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (3):692-718.
Sensitivity, safety, and anti-luck epistemology.Duncan Pritchard - 2008 - In John Greco (ed.), The Oxford handbook of skepticism. New York: Oxford University Press.
A problem for contrastivist accounts of knowledge.Christoph Kelp - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 152 (2):287-292.
Defending the Ignorance View of Sceptical Scenarios.Tim Kraft - 2015 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 5 (4):269-295.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-10-25

Downloads
80 (#208,876)

6 months
8 (#361,319)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Changsheng Lai
Shanghai JiaoTong University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophical explanations.Robert Nozick - 1981 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Knowledge and lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2004 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Epistemology and cognition.Alvin I. Goldman - 1986 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Reason, truth, and history.Hilary Putnam - 1981 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reason, Truth and History.Hilary Putnam - 1981 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 47 references / Add more references