The possibility of gaining accurate and verifiable knowledge has been a debatable topic in philosophy for centuries. Skepticism refers to the theory of knowledge that denies that there are multiple opportunities for deriving accurate information concerning reality. This essay seeks to explain skepticism, exemplify its propositions regarding the unreliability of normal sources of knowledge, and address the theory’s implications and possible responses to its proponents.
The theory of skepticism represents an entire family of views. It is built on the premise that people “lack knowledge in some fundamental way,” which implies that most or even all beliefs must be false (Vaughn, 2022, p. 284). The theory holds that there is no reliable method of distinguishing between beliefs that do and do not contain actual knowledge (Vaughn, 2022). As skepticism suggests, any piece of information stemming from perception, memory, reasoning, and introspection can possibly be an instance of delusion or a hallucination.
Perception is unreliable due to relativity and sensory organs’ imperfection. Physical/optical phenomena and the visual system’s limited adaptability to various environments can give rise to illusions, such as the incorrect perception of length, depth, movement, or temperature. For instance, if a mother’s hands are persistently cold, she might assume that her actually healthy child has a fever when touching the child’s forehead. Thus, sensory perception might be limited by the observer’s current state.
Regarding memory, the reason for its unreliability is that remembering all details and events without gaps is impossible. Memories change over time under the influence of a person’s emotions or external pressure. For instance, the possibility of inducing the memories of events that never happened has been confirmed scientifically (Calado et al., 2021). Therefore, there are reasons to assume that memory does not produce accurate knowledge.
Reasoning and introspection can also be imperfect in terms of trustworthiness. The former is unreliable since reasoning might involve operating facts that are actually misconceptions and incorporate biases. It can be untrustworthy when the subject is of personal importance, making an individual forced to emphasize and ignore some evidence to maintain psychological comfort. If devoted Christians reflect on the status of abortion, they can be inclined to emphasize evidence from religion while ignoring research on fetal pain and pro-choice secular arguments. Introspection’s unreliability might be rooted in people’s proneness to cognitive biases, including perceptual confirmation. As an example, if individuals wrongly assume that everyone hates them, they would be likely to treat others’ non-verbal cues and words taken out of context as the justification for this perception when examining it. Thus, these sources of knowledge might be inherently flawed and conducive to biases.
Concerning responses to skeptics, the truth that information from the four sources of knowledge can be false does not immediately lead to the assumption that people might never be correct. Firstly, if billions of people are greatly heterogeneous in perceiving reality and approaches to reasoning, it can be assumed that at least some will derive true and justifiable knowledge and spread it. Secondly, skepticism posits that there is no way to separate true and false beliefs, which is not entirely correct (Vaughn, 2022). People notice when something is unrealistic and differs from everyday experiences, so lucid dreaming is a common phenomenon.
Next, comparisons are available to range knowledge in terms of accuracy. For instance, patients with schizophrenia can compare their sensory perception before and after treatment with antipsychotics to single out the illusory elements. In this response to the theory’s proponents, it is also notable to mention that if most knowledge is incorrect, their assumption that people are always mistaken might be incorrect as well. It places skeptics and their opponents in an equal position.
Finally, philosophical skepticism argues that most sources of knowledge are flawed, and assessing the correctness of conclusions is impossible. The common sources of knowledge can generate misleading information due to the existence of biases, illusions, and memories’ proneness to modification and distortion. Nevertheless, skeptics’ denial of knowledge might also be illusory, and sensory perceptions of external objects provide cues for the assessment of their reliability.
References
Calado, B., Luke, T. J., Connolly, D. A., Landström, S., & Otgaar, H. (2021). Implanting false autobiographical memories for repeated events. Memory, 29(10), 1320-1341. Web.
Vaughn, L. (2022). Philosophy here and now: Powerful ideas in everyday life (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.