Talk:Philosophical skepticism

message: An example of this would be saying, "even though there is a very very slight possibility that we are dreaming..."
Who's to say that it is slight at all? Avoid saying this.
DeLoRtEd1 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not describe arbitrary probabilities when discussing possibilities

message: Hello, I'm new here and made a change in 'Objections to skepticism'.  Please don't bite my head off.  But please feel free to correct my edit if you believe I'm mistaken, or to reword what I wrote.  Basically, I just pointed out that Thomas Reid's objection to skepticism is invalid because Reid uses reasoning himself to refute the reliability of the skeptic's reason, and is thus using circular logic.
I enjoyed the rest of the article though, especially the great description of Descartes dreaming doubt.
redsake March 18, 3:50am (PST)
:I changed it back to the way it was before I edited it.  I gave it some thought and liked what the previous chap put.
:redsake March 24, 10:05pm (PST)
Oh well, I liked your version. The article is too long and needs more factual statement, less long-winded argument. Feel free to edit anything you think is either unsupportable or opinion based, and add anything you think has been missed out. Nice to have someone edit something anyway!
Sextus 18:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: Any suggestions to rid this of the rampant first-person POV? Edwardian 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
:The reason this is so non-wiki is because it is Larry's Text.  Major rewrite is suggested for any such article. KSchutte 23:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That link helps me to understand how it got to be the way it is. Edwardian 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is due for a major overhaul

message: In the section regarding arguements supposedly "against" skepticism, the arguements do not seem to even remotely provide a reason skepticism could be wrong. In attepting to say "if you don't know that the external world is real, than how to you know your thoughts are rational either" or ultimately apply philosophical skepticism disprove philosophical skepticism, the "opposing viewpoints" effectively reinforcing the position they are trying to disprove. Further, the arguements do not try to even point out reasons why skepticism is wrong, instead diverting the question from the validity of the external world to the validity of the internal mind, which does not provide an antithesis for philosophical skepticism. The methods of the listed objections consist of attacking the logical validity of the opposing arguments, which is effective against almost all other arguements which claim a preposition to be true, but not against this form of arguement, which is based not in the validity of an arguement, but rather in the invalitity of ALL other claims. Perhaps it would be accurate to change the title of the section "objections to philosophical skepticism" to something of a different nature, as an adaquate arguement against skepticism would be one that attempts to validate the arguement skepticism is opposing, such as the notion of an objective reality, rather than arguements attacking the validity of skepticism, which reinforces the notion that one cannot have true knowledge.
--66.24.238.44 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguements against philosophical skepticism 

message: in the absolute certainty part, there seems to be a bias towards absolutism, because it kind of makes fun of skepticism... just read the  no absolutist will be happy with the answer that skepticism is probably true by the skeptic... isn't that biassed? come on...
that shows some opinion on the part of who wrote it, this should be 'absolutely' (lol) imparcial.--Cosmic girl 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY 

message: this page is badly in need of a rewrite, and doesn't seem to have gotten one since it was last proposed.  The ancient eastern bit is bad, POV, and incomplete and that's just for starters. Bmorton3 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm giving it a try but it will be an enormous amount of work. Right now, it reads like a D-grade (or failing) freshman philosophy paper.  We almost might do better to just delete the article entirely.  Better a blank page than what currently is here.Dogface 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gives a lot of information, it's the writing that seems to be exceedingly long-winded for the amount of information in it. The part about Descartes dream uses the phrase "begging the question" so many times I wanted to scream. 75.26.5.96 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite?

message: "We can't prove that we're not dreaming. We can't prove that perception, or memory, is reliable. But now ask yourself: just because you can't prove something, does that mean that you don't know it? Or that you aren't justified in believing it? Take Descartes' dreaming doubt as an example."
This is not written from an encyclopedic POV. It gives commands and asks questions of the reader.
The article needs to be completely rewritten. Steevven1 13:29, 28 November 2006
:I agree that a lot of work needs to be done to fix the POV. An encyclopedia article should never use the words 'we,' 'you,' or 'I,' except in quotations. Everything should be third person. The tone also needs to change: it sounds like an informal conversation in some parts. I not sure if a complete rewrite is necessary, but considering the state this article is in I may soon agree with you. Galanskov 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in total agreement about the re-write.  A few considerations for whoever takes it on ( I would, however being a victim of public schools my grammer may not be up to snuff ;)) 1.  an entire article on sceptisism w/out mention of Michel de Montaigne, Voltaire, Seneca, or other true sceptics is in-excusable.  2. there is no school of sceptical thought.  Pyrrho was only trying to show the fallibility of certainty, not trying to say that suspended judgement is the goal, but modifying the way in wich we interact with each other i.e. is the death penalty o.k., while this can be a very philosophic discussion, the sceptic only cares about the application, i.e. how can you do something so final w/out complete knowledge of all the factors and would opt for imprisonment instead, or possibly vice-versa (I don't claim to know). 3. the lack of mention of the man who, while not nessecarilly a "Sceptic", definatly proved the point, Zeno with his paradoxes. 4. being a sceptic, I would say that it is not a philosophy as a search for the truth, but a practicle mindset when studiying anything that puts experiance, conveinince, practicality, and reasonableness, not pure a-priori reason, as the hallmark for workable ideas.  The other half of scepticism involves humane treatment of all people and beings in the veain that since certainty is impossible taking certain actions is very rash at best. 4. YOU CANNOT DISPROVE SCEPTISISM AS IT IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY, but a very sensible position to take until you have enough experiance to make a value judgement about the world. 5. I can find nothing like what was attributed to D. Hume in this article in his actual writings, perhaps the author was thinking of Kant? 6. very sophomoric tone to the entire article, one only need explain a philosophical position and its demonstrations or proofs using the author's own works, i.e. refer to Voltaire or Occam etc. no need to give critisism or plain language explanations as these always detract and mis-represent the material one is trying to learn about.  In short, finally, this article is why I am a sceptic.  There is no real information, there seems to be an agenda, and it isn't even accurate or factual in its percieved agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.242.187 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite Needed. 

message: First, epistemology and skepticism are inextricably linked, with much broader connotations than just epistemological nihilism. So this section title may be too general for this article. I think they should be merged, and I will do so within a week if nobody comments. It seems fairly obvious. II | (t - c) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. II | (t - c) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epistemology and skepticism 

message: Why is Descartes being depicted at the very top of the article as "one of the most famous skeptics in Western philosophy," when Descartes is perhaps the most famous anti-skeptic in the history of philosophy, and considered even the slightest degree of doubt and uncertainty to be, upon reflection, logically untenable? -Silence (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Descartes a skeptic?

message: A NOTE TO ANYONE THAT IS ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THIS ARGUMENT: IF YOU KEEP REMOVING MATERIAL SOLELY BECAUSE AN OUTSIDE FORCE SAYS IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THIS PAGE (eg, the "editors" making the standards, which by the way you are by definition a priori) THEN YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THIS ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND SHOULD NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO EDIT THIS PAGE.
so far the users with admin rights are either not intelligent enough to see their own hypocrisy relative to the skeptic's argument...or they are intelligent enough to be jealous for not being able to condense it to such a coherent proof themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.254.207 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the header may violate WP:NPA, but I doubt anyone will complain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moron's rant  

message: Hi everyone,
I was thinking it might be good to include a link to Hindu skepticism, namely the Cārvāka school. There's already a good Wikipedia article on it. I'll admit I don't know enough about Hindu philosophical skepticism to write an overview of it, but a link might be a good starting point! 24.84.32.98 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cārvāka school of Philosophical Skepticism in Hinduism 

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to Plato's Allegory of the Cave? The motivation of the allegory may be different from Descartes' evil demon, but the conclusion seems to be the same. -- NoahSpurrier (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's cave 

message: I fail to see why scientific scepticism should be mentioned in the first paragraph. I didn't think that was a kind of philosofic scepticism. Mick3 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why mention scientific scepticism in the first paragraph? 

message: Hi, I am a student editor taking the class of History of Skepticism at the University of Chicago. I will be working with another student editor who posted above on mostly the contents of this page concerining the history of philosophical skepticism. My plan is to use the book The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle by Richard Popkin as my primary source to introduce some of the sceptic ideas by Renaissance and post-Renaissance philosophers. I also want to work and expand the introduction of the scepticism idea of the ancient Chinese philosopher whom I found really interesting. Hope we can work together to improve the page for the better! -- Zhongshusheng (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Philosphical Skepticism 

message: Shouldn’t this be called Epistemological skepticism? --37KZ (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, the article can reasonably include applications of scepticism, to other areas of philosophy, as well as scepticism as a theory within the theory of knowledge (ie as an epistemological theory).  Example: the standpoint regarding moral philosophy, tht observation cannot provide a basis for moral precept ("is cannot imply ought").  That would normally be regarded as a position in moral philosophy - the application of an epistemological argument to moral philosophy - rather than as a position in the theory of knowledge.  The narrower, more technical title, Epistemological skepticism, would not be an improvement, I think.  - SquisherDa (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epistemological skepticism 

message: How could you know you're telling the truth about something without assuming that you are? Heymid (contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty