contractualist OP t1_iw3nt29 wrote
Summary: When is it unreasonable to be skeptical? When available evidence shows that a conclusion is intuitively certain and any doubt is only resolvable with evidence that is impossible to obtain.
Since all available evidence shows that other humans have minds like our own, we can be reasonably certain of other minds. Doubting other minds is, therefore, unreasonable if it requires impossible evidence to alleviate. The same principle of reasonable certainly also creates moral concern for future people as well, who we can be reasonably certain to exist in our future. Not being able to see into the future isn’t a valid basis for denying the moral standing of these future people. And reasonable certainty can also let us reject other ideas, like the existence of god and aliens.
TheConjugalVisit t1_iw5zggp wrote
It's rational to be skeptical.
Well, God and aliens are very different. I certainly think aliens could exist mostly because I believe God the grand creator.
Let's get to this idea of evidence, it's really opinion isn't it? Empirical philosophy would say so.
contractualist OP t1_iw7h9bg wrote
yet what I argue is there is reasonable and unreasonable skepticism, particularly where evidence is impossible to obtain and one's skepticism isn't subject to falsification. That level of doubt couldn't be justified to others.
And I wouldn't say all evidence is mere opinion, particularly when we act intuitively on where the evidence takes us.
iiioiia t1_iw81obn wrote
> there is reasonable and unreasonable skepticism
Unfortunately: opinions vary on what is valid skepticism, because reasoning varies and opinion often appears as fact.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments