Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[1] [2]: 88 Cartesian doubt is also known as Cartesian skepticism, methodic doubt, methodological skepticism, universal doubt, systematic doubt, or hyperbolic doubt. Cartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy .
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 ...
For example, the statement "If Joseph Swan had not invented the modern incandescent light bulb, then someone else would have invented it anyway" is a counterfactual, because, in fact, Joseph Swan invented the modern incandescent light bulb. The most immediate task concerning counterfactuals is that of explaining their truth-conditions.
For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used. Modal scope fallacy – a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.
Skepticism, also spelled scepticism in British English, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma. [1] 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.
Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism in British English) is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible. [1] Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified.
Doubt is a mental state in which the mind remains suspended between two or more contradictory propositions, and is uncertain about them. [1] [better source needed] Doubt on an emotional level is indecision between belief and disbelief.
Philosophical naturalists often reject this line of thought and hold that empirical evidence can confirm or disconfirm philosophical theories, at least indirectly. [9] Philosophical evidence, which may be obtained, for example, through intuitions or thought experiments, is central for justifying basic principles and axioms.