Here is one hand

Last updated

Here is one hand is an epistemological argument created by G. E. Moore in reaction against philosophical skepticism about the external world and in support of common sense.

Contents

The argument takes the following form:

Introduction

G. E. Moore wrote "A Defence of Common Sense" and Proof of an External World. For the purposes of these essays, he posed skeptical hypotheses, such as that according to which we are disembodied souls living in an immaterial world with the mere hallucination of ordinary things induced by a Cartesian evil demon, and then provided his own response to them. Such hypotheses ostensibly create a situation where it seems that it is not possible to know that anything in the world exists. To reach this conclusion, the skeptic uses arguments with the following form.

The skeptical argument

Where S is a subject, sk is a skeptical possibility, such as the evil demon hypothesis or the more recent brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is any fact that supposedly exists in the world (e.g. the fact that there are trees and mountains):

  • If S knows that q, then S knows that not-sk.
  • S doesn't know that not-sk.
  • Therefore, S doesn't know that q.

Moore's response

Moore does not attack the first premise of the skeptic's argument, but denies its conclusion and uses this negation as the second premises of his own argument. So, Moore reverses the argument from being in the form of modus tollens to modus ponens. This logical maneuver is often called a G. E. Moore shift or a Moorean shift. [1] This is captured clearly in Fred Dretske's aphorism that "one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens". [2] His response takes the following form:

  • If S knows that q, then S knows that not-sk.
  • S knows that q.
  • Therefore, S knows that not-sk.

Explanation

Moore put the point into dramatic relief with his 1939 essay Proof of an External World, in which he gave a common sense argument against skepticism by raising his right hand and saying "here is one hand," and then raising his left and saying "and here is another". Here, Moore is taking his knowledge claim (I know that q) to be that he knows that (q) there are two hands, where these hands are external, that is to say, material. Without rejecting the skeptic's first premise, Moore seeks to prove that he can know that the skeptical possibility sk is false. Here, sk stands for "I'm a disembodied soul living in an immaterial world". If there is an external world made by at least two hands, sk is false.

Moore's argument is not simply a flippant response to the skeptic. Moore gives, in Proof of an External World, three requirements for a good proof: (1) the premises must be different from the conclusion, (2) the premises must be known, and (3) the conclusion must follow from the premises. He claims that his proof of an external world meets those three criteria.

In his 1925 essay "A Defence of Common Sense", Moore argues against skepticism toward the external world (and idealism) on the grounds that the skeptic could not give reasons to accept the premise that we don't know that we aren't in a sceptical scenario (S doesn't know that not-sk) that are stronger than the reasons we have to accept common sense claims such as that we know that there are hands (S knows that q), when we see them. In other words, Moore thinks it is more reasonable to believe that we have hands when we see them than to believe the alternative premise of what he deems "a strange argument in a university classroom." [3]

Objections and replies

Some subsequent philosophers (especially those inclined to skeptical doubts) have found Moore's method of argument unconvincing. [4]

One form of refutation contends that Moore's attempted proof fails his second criterion for a good proof (i.e. the premises are not known) by pointing out the difference between demonstrating the perception that his hands exist and demonstrating the knowledge that his hands exist. Moore may be doing the former when he means to be doing the latter. [4]

Another form of refutation simply points out that not everyone shares Moore's intuition. If a person finds the skeptical possibility sp more intuitively likely than the knowledge claim q, then for that person Moore's own defense of intuition provides a basis for their skepticism. [4]

Wittgenstein

Appeals of this type are subsequently often called "Moorean facts". [1] "A Moorean fact [is] one of those things that we know better than we know the premises of any philosophical argument to the contrary". [3]

Moore's claim to know such facts had "long interested" [5] Ludwig Wittgenstein. His last writings in the six weeks before his death in 1951 were an attempt to respond comprehensively to Moore's argument, the fourth time in two years he had tried to do so. His notes from the four periods were collected and translated by his literary executors and published posthumously as On Certainty in 1969.

Wittgenstein offers a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty. Considering "I know", he says "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail knowing Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.

The dispute on justification transmission failure between Wright and Pryor

The discussion of Moore's controversial proof has given rise to an important dispute over its interpretation and evaluation, with Crispin Wright and James Pryor as its main protagonists. [6] Wright has famously argued that Moore's proof is subtly circular so that it cannot provide justification for believing its conclusion. [7] Wright schematises Moore's proof as follows:

  • (H) This is a hand.
  • (W) There is an external world (i.e. something material).

Here, Moore's evidence for H is his visual experience of a hand. Wright acknowledges that H entails W (if there is a material hand, there is something material). However, Wright argues that H can be justified by Moore's experience only if Moore has independent justification for believing W. Because of this – Wright argues – the justification for H fails to transmit to W.

To see what Wright has in mind, consider this different argument that – Wright contends – does not transmit justification in the same sense. Suppose that Jessica and Jocelyn are indistinguishable twins, and suppose that John tries to use the following argument to conclude that the girl in front of him is not Jocelyn.

  • (J) This girl is Jessica.
  • (N) This girl is not Jocelyn.

Here, J entails N. However, imagine that John's evidence for J is the fact that the girl before him resembles Jessica. Clearly, this evidence can justify J for John only if he already has justification for believing that the girl is not Jocelyn (i.e. Jessica's indistinguishable twin). Given this, John cannot use the above argument to come to justifiably believe N. Wright claims that arguments like this do not transmit justification.

Wright insists that what happens in Moore's proof is analogous: Moore can get justification for believing H from his appearance of a hand only if he has antecedent justification for believing W. Thus, Moore cannot come to justifiably believe W through his proof. In short, Moore's proof is not transmissive.

Pryor disagrees because he thinks that Moore's proof is transmissive. [8] According to Pryor's classification, Wright's epistemology of perception is conservative. According to perceptual conservatism, when an agent S has an experience as if P (where P is any proposition), S can have (fallible) justification for believing P only if S has independent justification for ruling out all relevant error hypotheses (e.g. the hypothesis that S's experience is a mere hallucination).

The main problem with conservatism is that it may lead us to skepticism. In other words, conservatives must explain where our independent justification for ruling out error hypotheses comes from in general, which appears to be very hard. (To answer this question, Wright, for example, has advanced his controversial theory of epistemic entitlement.) [9]

Pryor rejects conservatism and embraces a form of liberalism about perception that he calls "perceptual dogmatism." According to perceptual dogmatism, if S has an experience as if P, S has immediate (fallible) justification for believing P. Immediate justification for P is a justification that does not rest on independent justification for believing anything else.

According to perceptual dogmatism, Moore does not need an independent justification for believing W, when he has an experience as if H, in order to obtain justification for believing H. Therefore, within this theoretical framework, Moore's proof is transmissive: Moore can obtain justification for W through his argument.

Pryor acknowledges that Moore's proof seems "odd," but suggests that its problem is not epistemic but dialectical: the proof produces a justification for the conclusion, yet it will not convince the obstinate skeptic who already doubts the conclusion before examining the proof. Since the skeptic doubts that there is an external world, she will not accept her experience as if there is a hand as justification for believing that there is a (material) hand. Thus, the skeptic will not be convinced by Moore's proof.

Luca Moretti has recently proposed an alternative interpretation of the apparent "oddness" of Moore's proof. [10] According to Moretti, who accepts a form of liberalism, since Moore has an experience that there is a hand – precisely, a material hand – Moore will directly obtain from that experience a justification for believing both H and W – that is, that there is a hand and something material. Hence, Moore does not need to reason through the argument to obtain a justification for W. Thus, Moore's proof is strange because it is actually useless if one seeks justification for believing that the external word exists.

See also

Related Research Articles

Internalism and externalism are two opposite ways of integration of explaining various subjects in several areas of philosophy. These include human motivation, knowledge, justification, meaning, and truth. The distinction arises in many areas of debate with similar but distinct meanings. Internal–external distinction is a distinction used in philosophy to divide an ontology into two parts: an internal part concerning observation related to philosophy, and an external part concerning question related to philosophy.

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism in British English, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma. For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim. Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology.

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge.

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. One approach defines deduction in terms of the intentions of the author: they have to intend for the premises to offer deductive support to the conclusion. With the help of this modification, it is possible to distinguish valid from invalid deductive reasoning: it is invalid if the author's belief about the deductive support is false, but even invalid deductive reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning.

Philosophical skepticism is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge. It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence. This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. Pyrrhonian skepticism is a practice of suspending judgement, and skepticism in this sense is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific skepticism</span> Questioning of claims lacking empirical evidence

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking scientific evidence. In practice, the term most commonly refers to the examination of claims and theories that appear to be unscientific, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humans' ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about the truth of one's beliefs.

Moral skepticism is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brain in a vat</span> Philosophical thought experiment

In philosophy, the brain in a vat (BIV) is a scenario used in a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of human conceptions of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, consciousness, and meaning. Gilbert Harman conceived the scenario, which Hilary Putnam turned into a modernized version of René Descartes's evil demon thought experiment. Following many science fiction stories, the scenario involves a mad scientist who might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer that would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those a brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality and the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences, like those of a person with an embodied brain, without these being related to objects or events in the real world. According to Putnam, the thought of "being a brain-in-a-vat" (BIV) is either false or meaningless. Considered a cornerstone of semantic externalism, the argument produced significant literature. The Matrix franchise and other fictional works (below) are considered inspired by Putnam's argument.

Crispin James Garth Wright is a British philosopher, who has written on neo-Fregean (neo-logicist) philosophy of mathematics, Wittgenstein's later philosophy, and on issues related to truth, realism, cognitivism, skepticism, knowledge, and objectivity. He is Professor of Philosophical Research at the University of Stirling, and taught previously at the University of St Andrews, University of Aberdeen, New York University, Princeton University and University of Michigan.

Nonsense is a form of communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning. In ordinary usage, nonsense is sometimes synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous. Many poets, novelists and songwriters have used nonsense in their works, often creating entire works using it for reasons ranging from pure comic amusement or satire, to illustrating a point about language or reasoning. In the philosophy of language and philosophy of science, nonsense is distinguished from sense or meaningfulness, and attempts have been made to come up with a coherent and consistent method of distinguishing sense from nonsense. It is also an important field of study in cryptography regarding separating a signal from noise.

Evidentialism is a thesis in epistemology which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports said belief. Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not.

<i>Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language</i> 1982 exegesis by Saul Kripke

Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language is a 1982 book by philosopher of language Saul Kripke in which he contends that the central argument of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations centers on a skeptical rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of our ever following rules in our use of language. Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date" (p. 60). He argues that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a "skeptical solution" to alleviate the paradox's destructive effects.

Pseudoskepticism is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality is a form of dogmatism.

In the philosophy of science, underdetermination or the underdetermination of theory by data is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it. The underdetermination thesis says that all evidence necessarily underdetermines any scientific theory.

Michael Williams is a British philosopher who is currently Krieger-Eisenhower Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University, noted especially for his work in epistemology.

<i>On Certainty</i> Book by Ludwig Wittgenstein

On Certainty is a philosophical book composed from notes written by Ludwig Wittgenstein over four separate periods in the eighteen months before his death on 29 April 1951. He left his initial notes at the home of Elizabeth Anscombe, who linked them by theme with later passages in Wittgenstein's personal notebooks and, compiled them into a German/English parallel text book published in 1969. The translators were Denis Paul and Anscombe herself.

A transcendental argument is a kind of deductive argument that appeals to the necessary conditions that make experience and knowledge possible. Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification which are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments. The philosopher Immanuel Kant gave transcendental arguments both their name and their notoriety.

Epistemic closure is a property of some belief systems. It is the principle that if a subject knows , and knows that entails , then can thereby come to know . Most epistemological theories involve a closure principle and many skeptical arguments assume a closure principle.

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?", and "Why do we know what we know?". Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

Skeptical theism is the view that people should remain skeptical of their ability to discern whether their perceptions about evil can be considered good evidence against the existence of the orthodox Christian God. The central thesis of skeptical theism is that it would not be surprising for an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being's reasons for permitting evils to be beyond human comprehension. That is, what may seem like pointless evils may be necessary for a greater good or to prevent equal or even greater evils. This central thesis may be argued from a theistic perspective, but is also argued to defend positions of agnosticism.

References

  1. 1 2 Preston, Aaron (2004). "From the Ontology of Cognition to Criteriology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. George Edward Moore (1873—1958). Retrieved April 13, 2016.
  2. ↑ Dretske, F. (1995), Naturalizing the Mind, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. ISBN   0-262-04149-9
  3. 1 2 DeRose, Keith (1999). "Responding to Skepticism" (PDF). Introduction to 'Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader'. Oxford UP. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 29, 2017. Retrieved April 13, 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 Podgorski, Daniel (2015). "Intuition All Alone: On G.E. Moore's Tempting but Insufficient Answer to Radical Skepticism". The Gemsbok. Retrieved April 13, 2016.
  5. ↑ Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969). On Certainty . New York: Harper and Row. p. vie. ISBN   0-06-131686-5.
  6. ↑ Transmission of Justification and Warrant - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  7. ↑ Wright, Crispin (2002). "(Anti-)Sceptics Simple and Subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 330-348.
  8. ↑ Pryor, James (2004). "What’s wrong with Moore’s argument?" Philosophical Issue, 14, Epistemology: 349-378.
  9. ↑ Wright, Crispin (2004). “Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free)?” Aristotelian Society Supplementary 78: 167–212.
  10. ↑ Moretti, Luca (2014). “The dogmatist, Moore’s proof and transmission failure”. Analysis 74: 382-389.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.