Responses to Scepticism

 

The video above presents the following responses to the problem of scepticism:

•  René Descartes (1596 – 1650)
• Descartes argues that he has an innate idea of God as a perfect being. He concludes that God necessarily exists, because, if he did not, he would not be perfect. 
• God is perfect, he does not deceive human beings. Since God leads humans to believe that the material world exists, therefore it does exist.
• This response appears to be a case of confirmation bias.  Descartes, being a Christian, wants to believe that God and reality exist and he rationalises his beliefs. 
• Bertrand Russel (1872 – 1970)
• The bad case is possible, but there is no reason to believe that it is true though.
• The good case is simpler and more likely to be true. 
• G. E. Moore - George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958)
• Proof of an external world:
• Here is one hand,
• Here is another,
• Hands are external objects, 
• Therefore,  external world exists.
• Moore's proof relies on that the premises 'here is one hand' and 'here is another' to be basic and do not need to be proved. 

In the following video, Australian philosopher, David Chalmers (born 1966) gives another response to the problem of scepticism.

Pierre Le Morvan (2011) has distinguished between three broad philosophical responses to skepticism. (from Wikipedia page on Philosophical Skepticism, under the heading Criticism of Epistemological Skepticism.)

• The first he calls the "Foil Approach." Skepticism is treated as a problem to be solved, or challenge to be met, or threat to be parried; its value, if any, derives from its role as a foil. It clarifies by contrast, and so illuminates what is required for knowledge and justified belief. 
• The second he calls the "Bypass Approach" according to which skepticism is bypassed as a central concern of epistemology. 
• Le Morvan advocates a third approach—he dubs it the "Health Approach"—that explores when skepticism is healthy and when it is not, or when it is virtuous and when it is vicious.

Responses from Russel and Moore could be considered as 'foil approaches'.  David Chalmers' response could be considered to be a 'bypass approach'.