Rival timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction: Cartesian external world skepticism 00:55 - What is skepticism? Skepticism in different domains 02:03 - Why is skepticism to be taken seriously? 1. Expert disagreement 2. Better understanding of our epistemic concepts 05:12 - The Evil Demon 08:00 - A cartesian closure based external-world-skeptical argument 08:26 - Seven responses to the argument 08:32 - First response (against P1): Reliabilism 10:24 - Second response (against P2): Sensitivity 11:44 - Third response (against P1): Contextualism 13:46 - Fourth response: Moorean shift 15:19 - Fifth response (against P1): Hinge propositions 16:42 - Sixth response: Chalmers 19:27 - Seventh response (against P1): Inference to the best explanation ("So if we compare the theories..."), a counter argument 23:57 - Responding to objections to P3 of the counter argument 24:27 - First objection 31:58 - Second objection 33:54 - Third objection 37:32 - An objection to IBE 40:22 - Closing thoughts ("That is to say...")
Great video. You may have touched on this and I didn't catch it. We must also question the viability of the demon thought experiment due to the fact that we have become aware of the possibility that we are being deceived. If the purpose is to keep us subdued in illusion, then why give us the opportunity to question our state? Sure, this could be a limitation to the "demon's" power that only a few overcome, but that very thing supports your EW argument.
0:00: 🤔 Challenging the existence of the external world through philosophical skepticism. 4:30: 🤔 Exploring the implications of applying standards of evidence to religious beliefs and skepticism towards Christianity. 9:09: 💭 Critique of reliabilism in response to skepticism and the challenge of relying on reliable cognitive faculties. 13:48: 🤔 The Moran approach argues for certainty in knowledge by prioritizing belief in having hands over philosophical skepticism. 18:29: 💡 Limitations of Chalmers' argument in addressing skepticism despite its brilliance. 23:12: 💡 The argument for skepticism based on the inference to the best explanation principle. 27:50: ⚖️ Discussion on the implications of distance and duration in various spaces. 32:55: 💡 Absence of conceived alternatives to existing hypothesis diminishes skepticism in scientific context. 37:15: 💡 Critique of inference to the best explanation in response to skepticism. Recap by Tammy AI
The evil demon hypothesis is similar to the idealistic responses to external world skepticism. To avoid collapse into solipsism, they bring to the table unintelligible and more complex hypotheses. Literally, where philosophy goes bad, lol.
This video is the perfect combination of stuff I am interested in 😍
Rival timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction: Cartesian external world skepticism
00:55 - What is skepticism?
Skepticism in different domains
02:03 - Why is skepticism to be taken seriously?
1. Expert disagreement
2. Better understanding of our epistemic concepts
05:12 - The Evil Demon
08:00 - A cartesian closure based external-world-skeptical argument
08:26 - Seven responses to the argument
08:32 - First response (against P1): Reliabilism
10:24 - Second response (against P2): Sensitivity
11:44 - Third response (against P1): Contextualism
13:46 - Fourth response: Moorean shift
15:19 - Fifth response (against P1): Hinge propositions
16:42 - Sixth response: Chalmers
19:27 - Seventh response (against P1): Inference to the best explanation ("So if we compare the theories..."), a counter argument
23:57 - Responding to objections to P3 of the counter argument
24:27 - First objection
31:58 - Second objection
33:54 - Third objection
37:32 - An objection to IBE
40:22 - Closing thoughts ("That is to say...")
Great video. You may have touched on this and I didn't catch it.
We must also question the viability of the demon thought experiment due to the fact that we have become aware of the possibility that we are being deceived. If the purpose is to keep us subdued in illusion, then why give us the opportunity to question our state? Sure, this could be a limitation to the "demon's" power that only a few overcome, but that very thing supports your EW argument.
Underrated content 🎉
Awesome video!
0:00: 🤔 Challenging the existence of the external world through philosophical skepticism.
4:30: 🤔 Exploring the implications of applying standards of evidence to religious beliefs and skepticism towards Christianity.
9:09: 💭 Critique of reliabilism in response to skepticism and the challenge of relying on reliable cognitive faculties.
13:48: 🤔 The Moran approach argues for certainty in knowledge by prioritizing belief in having hands over philosophical skepticism.
18:29: 💡 Limitations of Chalmers' argument in addressing skepticism despite its brilliance.
23:12: 💡 The argument for skepticism based on the inference to the best explanation principle.
27:50: ⚖️ Discussion on the implications of distance and duration in various spaces.
32:55: 💡 Absence of conceived alternatives to existing hypothesis diminishes skepticism in scientific context.
37:15: 💡 Critique of inference to the best explanation in response to skepticism.
Recap by Tammy AI
The evil demon hypothesis is similar to the idealistic responses to external world skepticism. To avoid collapse into solipsism, they bring to the table unintelligible and more complex hypotheses.
Literally, where philosophy goes bad, lol.