Skepticism is absolutely necessary to move forward as a society and as an individual. Speaking completely in absolutes can be ignorant and dangerous. Refusing to look to the other side of an argument can lead to a one-sided world. A limited view of any concept only leads to greater difficulties, less innovation, and less open-mindedness. Without skepticism, the multitudes of political philosophies that exist today would disappear. Change could only occur when people began to question the systems that they lived in and/or the validity of their leader(s)'s actions. Without change, every protest, every revolution, every legislative action, and virtually all of history and its implications would disappear. However, one could argue that without all of this, Donald Trump would not be running for president right now.Without skepticism, one runs the risk of losing the basic rights that were promised to them.
Nevertheless, the existence of skepticism itself proposes a conundrum: with skepticism, how can we have a world built on "strong knowledge"? Without complete confidence in a piece of information, this fact immediately becomes "weak knowledge". "Weak knowledge" is deemed essentially useless because of the large margin of error it yields. With humans "standing on the shoulders of giants", basing their knowledge on generally accepted facts (that are still subjected to some level of skepticism), does everything we know become useless? Is everything a construct because we must remain skeptical to survive?
I really like the point you made about world leaders and politics. I feel that political ideology is drawn from skepticism about the future.
ReplyDeleteWhile we need skepticism to survive, I think that believing that everything is a construct is to existential. Maybe in philosophy there is no such thing as true knowledge or strong knowledge, but realistically this is too far fetched to worry about in our normal daily lives. And if everything we know becomes useless, then we would be bereft of meaning and purpose beyond instinct.
You mention how skepticism is necessary for human innovation and advancement of society, but all the examples you mentioned are people being skeptic of OTHER PEOPLES' knowledge, rather than an individuals. I agree that as a society the only way we can move forward is through the disagreements of other people, and I agree that there are reasons to be skeptical because everything we know might be a lie; however, how do you see society moving forward by only questioning our own personal knowledge?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that there is a certain balance necessary for maintaining "strong knowledge" and skepticism? Should that balance apply to everything we consider to be a fact, or should this be considered in terms of what is weak and strong knowledge? I liked how you linked skepticism to politics; while skepticism brings about opportunity for change, those opportunities are not always "positive." However, I don't believe that skepticism is necessary for survival. While our lives would definitely be less autonomous, a secure society could be a safe place to be without changing.
ReplyDeleteTo imagine a different ending (which is not the same as to be skeptical) does the process of rejecting and replacing knowledge eventually lead to a world in which skepticism is no longer necessary/useful?
ReplyDelete