Skepticism and Rationality

...

[pic 1] [pic 2]

Thus, it is mere selection bias which leads to the apparent effect of our belief in causation having led to our survival as a species.

Even then, the possibility that the relation of cause and effect truly does exist in the manner understood by humans cannot be ruled out. This must be addressed differently. According to the traditional definition of knowledge, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge (Gettier). Why must knowledge be justified? If one believes something, and that belief is true, is that not enough to know it? It is not, because an improperly formed belief may still be true, but does not constitute knowledge. Take Jonas, who just flipped a coin, and for no reason believes that it will land on heads. Even if the coin does land on heads, he did not, in fact, ‘know it all along.’ Thus, it is the justification of causality that Humes disassembles. Thus, even if the cause and effect relation exists, Hume says, we as humans have no basis for this belief, and cannot justify it. Thus, we cannot truly know the cause or effect of an object or event. This is vital because even if causation truly does exist, our belief in it is not justified, and therefore we cannot say that we know one thing to be the cause of another. For example, take a simple cause-effect relationship: Every time Adam pushes a ball, and it rolls 5 meters. We may form a number of beliefs from this, but let us say we believe that the ball rolls because it was pushed. Thus, the belief condition for this proposition is met. Let us assume that causality exists, and the truth condition is met. But, Hume says, the justifiability condition cannot be met, and so we can not know whether the ball rolled because it was pushed.

Some philosophers may make an argument in favor of pragmatism. They would argue that since accepting the existence of causality is of more value to humanity, it should be accepted as a matter of fact. Without accepting causality, Hume himself began to sink into depression:

The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favour shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom have, I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness, and utterly depriv'd of the use of every member and faculty. (Treatise 1.4.7.8)

Thus, it is argued that since belief in causality is what allows humans to function on a day to day level, it must be accepted as true. However, this counterargument fails to truly refute Hume’s skepticism, which drives towards the justification of causality, rather than the truth of its existence. For example let us suppose that when Henry lifts his arm, his shirt tears. While it may be true that Henry’s shirt was too tight, which caused his shirt to tear, this inductive inference cannot be justified, since an infinity of other possible explanations exist.

It is widely agreed that Hume’s skeptical argument must be accepted. The question then, is how to continue, as a rational being, to function in the world while the basis of every belief and conclusion one holds about the world is torn away. Thus, any argument against Hume must center, not on refuting the argument but limiting and restricting it. One answer, perhaps, is to avoid proving the unprovable, and take the existence of the external world to be basic and bedrock. We should consider it as we would any per se nota (self-evident) truth as being unprovable by definition. If not, then we will find ourselves in a very strange and artificial state of consciousness where our only defense against madness and insanity is distraction. An inadequate philosophical framework will naturally create emotional and rational dissonance in the one who tries to inhabit it. Logic would seem to indicate that the more adequate a person's philosophical framework is, the more livable it will be. This should be reason enough to abandon such skepticism. Another approach is to use other forms of reasoning, such as Karl Popper’s attempt to distance science from induction. He claimed that science is not induction, but rather a combination of conjecture and criticism. Any theory can be come up with, and those theories are then criticized or corroborated, rather than confirmed or falsified, with empirical evidence. The most well-corroborated theories then become part of scientific belief, until they are falsified by conflicting evidence. It is then rational to believe in well-corroborated theories, and discard them if conflicting evidence turns up. Using the theory of evolution as an example, the scientific theory makes predictions, but these predictions are not based on previous corroboration, but the theory itself, which is justified through reason alone.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

Gettier, Edmund L. "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Analysis 23.6 (1963): 121-23. Digital Text International. 13 Sept. 1997. Web. 8 Mar. 2016. .

Hume, David. Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding, and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. Project Gutenberg. Web. 8 March 2016.