Metaphysics: Skepticism
Quotes from Famous Skeptics / Skeptical Philosophers
Discussion on the Metaphysics of Skepticism,
Philosophy as the Study of Truth, Reality & the Certainty of Knowledge.
The Good & Bad of Skepticism (Scientific Minds are Skeptical but Open)
Hi Everyone,
I have been re-writing the main pages of this website for the past month
(May, 2007) trying to be as concise and simple as possible (to keep the
pages short / friendly for you). This page though is quite long, as it
covers a lot of ground on scepticism which is important. It has a very
good collection of quotes from the great philosophers - I hope that you
will read them as I think this knowledge of healthy skepticism will repay
you many times over - by providing good foundations for how to think
and live in a complex and at times confusing world. (Geoff Haselhurst)
On the Difficulty of Convincing a Skeptical Postmodern Humanity
that we can Know Reality
It is an almost impossible task to convince current postmodern
philosophy (which teaches that there are no Absolute Truths) that we can
(and now do) know the truth about physical reality. This task is made more
difficult again by the fact that there are many thousands of generally
well meaning 'crackpot theorist' websites on the internet with all sorts
of strange ideas (so people just get confused and give up I suspect).
Nonetheless, I am quite certain that many people care greatly
about science and philosophy, appreciate their importance to Humanity,
and their current problems and contradictions. Likewise many people would
dearly love to see these errors and problems corrected. It is to you that
I write, believing that over time the force of reason and truth invariably
prevails over customs and opinions.
I first read Einstein and Lorentz about seven years ago.
Einstein considered matter to be Spherically Spatially extended (not a
discrete particle) and Lorentz imagined Space to exist as a medium for
waves. I suspect it was largely from these two ideas, combined with the
well known particle / wave duality of matter, that caused me to think of
the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter in Space.
Now, ten years later, I at times feel like writing that it
is 'bloody
obvious' that the Wave Structure of Matter is correct, that reality
has been discovered. It is after all very simple and obvious once known. Space
exists as a wave medium, matter exists as the spherical wave motions of
Space. (Please see main articles at the top of this page for more
details.)
Of course, as a philosopher I realise that the 'bloody obvious'
argument doesn't hold much water (it makes my kids smile though). Instead
we are required to use the methods of science and philosophy to prove that
we now have the correct language to directly describe what exists.
This is an enormously difficult task - that substantial proof is required
to convince a highly skeptical humanity (which is understandable considering
we have failed for 2,500 years to understand reality). Over the years I
have thought about this and have concluded that the best two things would
be;
i) To deduce
reality such that Scientists could likewise determine the truth of
this for themselves, and would thus agree that the Wave Structure of
Matter in Space was necessary and certain. That my opinion was irrelevant,
the truth was necessary, self evident and clear to all.
ii) To explain and solve the major problems of human knowledge.
As Plato wrote, truth comes from reality. Thus true knowledge of reality
should correct the past errors of philosophy, physics and metaphysics.
(See top of page)
With this in mind, over the past ten years I have read many
hundred of books on metaphysics, philosophy and physics (by
the greatest minds of human history - which has been a pleasant task as
I find the minds and ideas of people who wrote on truth and reality fascinating).
I am now certain that the Wave Structure of Matter does explain and solve
most of the major problems of physics, philosophy and metaphysics. That
it does not explain all problems is a limitation of my mind and my time,
so there is obviously still much to be done.
To begin - some important quotes on skepticism, truth and reality.
It
is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon
tradition ... do not go upon hearsay. (Buddha)
Sabbadanam dhammadanam jinati - 'The gift of truth excels all other gifts.'
(Buddha)
What
is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to
the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy.
... When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and
reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently;
but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only
form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it
seems to lack intelligence. (Plato)
Nothing
seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real
knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than
to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing,
reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence
of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not
fixed the meaning of those words. (George Berkeley)
This
begets a very natural question; What is meant by a skeptic? And how far
it is possible to push these philosophical principles of doubt and uncertainty?
... I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes,
because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it
does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned,
for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon
any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that
the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension.
... There is a species of scepticism, antecedent to all study and philosophy,
which is much inculcated by Descartes and others, as a sovereign preservative
against error and precipitate judgement. It recommends an universal doubt,
not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of our very
faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must assure ourselves, by a
chain of reasoning, deduced from some original principle, which cannot
possibly be fallacious or deceitful.
(David Hume, 1737)
Do
not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical.
... There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with
it everything else has only secondary value.
This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves
to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? ... One does not want to
be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or
fatal to be deceived. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)
The
quest for certainty has played a considerable part in the history of philosophy:
it has been assumed that without a basis of certainty all our claims to
knowledge must be suspect. (A.J Ayer)
If experience cannot justify the skeptic, neither
can it refute him. Psychologically, indeed, he may receive encouragement
from the fact that by following our accepted standards of proof we sometimes
arrive at beliefs which turn out to be false: it would be hard for him
to get a hearing if the procedures which he questions never lead us astray.
... Our reward for taking skepticism seriously is that we are brought to
distinguish the different levels at which our claims of knowledge stand.
In this way we gain clearer understanding of the dimensions of our language;
and so of the world which it serves us to describe. (Ayer,
1956)
I begin with the fundamentals of truth as described by Aristotle, and
then list (below) six important skeptical principles which are applied
to skeptically analyse the Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion and the
Wave Structure of Matter.
Now there is a principle in things that are for which illusion
is impossible and whose truth, rather, we cannot fail to acknowledge, the
principle that it is not possible for the same thing both to be, and not
to be, at one and the same time, or indeed harbour any other such pair
of contraries.
However, if you have on your hands a guy who is making opposite assertions
and you want to show him the falsity of his ways, you are going to have
to get out of him some concession which amounts to the principle that it
is not possible for the same thing both to be and not to be at one and
the same time, even though it may not be thought to be the same.
Only in this way can the principle be demonstrated in the
face of one who says that it is possible for opposite statements to be
true in respect of the same thing. In any case, if any two people are going
to have a debate, there has to be some common ground. Without it what joint
basis for discussion will there be? What, then, is needed is that each
of the words used must be familiar and indicate something, not several
things but only one. (Or if it does indicate a plurality of things, it
must be made clear to which of these things the word is being applied in
the context.)
Given these ground rules, anyone who says that a given
thing both is and is not is denying what he is asserting, so that he is
denying that the word indicates what it indicates, which is impossible.
If, then, something is indicated by saying that a given thing is, it is
impossible for the denial of it to be true in respect of the same thing.
On top of that, if the word indicates something and is asserted truly,
this must be of necessity. And what is of necessity does not admit of ever
not being. Thus it is not possible for opposite statements to be true in
respect of the same thing.
Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following
claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion. And if
there is a true assertion, this is a refutation of what is pretended by
the raisers of these objections, being as they are the comprehensive eliminators
of all debate.
... the basis of the cure is definition. Now a definition arises from the
necessity that words have some meaning; for the definition is the account
of which the word is the sign.
Rather, they start this, displaying it to the senses, .... and go on to
offer more or less rigorous demonstrations of the per se attributes of
their proprietary genera. This sort of procedure is inductive and it is
as plain as a pikestaff that it does not amount to a demonstration of essence
or of what it is to be a thing. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
To summarize, we agree that words must correspond to real things that
exist, and these things cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
We need this common ground to begin this skeptical analysis. Further, we
must define the meaning of our words by directly relating them to what
exists, and not by relating them to our naive real senses (like solid bodies,
colours and emotions which are human constructions of the mind).
We do this with One Principle which states that One thing (substance) Space
exists as a Wave-Medium and matter exists as the Spherical Wave Motion
of Space.
This is followed by six fundamental principles of skeptical analysis which
are applied to the Wave Structure of Matter.
Fundamental Principles of Skeptical Analysis
Contents
1.1 We must Critically Analyse our Existing
Beliefs
1.2 We cannot use 'God' as a Metaphysical explanation of the 'Necessary
Connexion' between Things
1.3 We should always keep an Open Mind
1.4 Our Guiding Metaphysical Principles Must be Simple, Logical and Sensible
1.5 All Knowledge of Reality Ultimately Comes from Our Senses and Experience
1.6 We should be aware of 'Naive Realism' and that our Mind 'Represents'
the World of our Senses
1.1 We must Critically Analyse our Existing Beliefs
In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and
modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to
accompany a just reasoner. (David Hume, 1737)
We begin by accepting the uncertainty of our existing beliefs and agree
that beliefs require critical analysis from firm foundations (i.e. Knowledge
of Philosophy, Physics, and Metaphysics). As Descartes elegantly writes,
Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware
that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true,
and that consequently what I afterwards based on such principles was highly
doubtful: and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking
once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of
commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired
to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. (Descartes,
1637)
Now it seems that this is generally difficult for humans to do and there
are two obvious reasons for this.
Firstly we have clearly evolved to form strong cultural / religious beliefs
(generally determined by famous males) which unite and strengthen our tribe
(and thus enhance our survival).
Secondly, we depend upon language to understand things, and our language
contains many pre-conceived (a priori) ideas and beliefs that
subtly and insidiously affect the ability of our minds to think freely
and critically.
Three particular beliefs (below) must now be re-analysed;
i) Time existing as a real thing in itself
ii) Particles with Charge and Mass, and thus also requiring electromagnetic
and gravitational fields to connect them.
iii) The non-existence of an absolute Space (Einstein's theory of relativity)
1.2 We cannot use 'God' as a Metaphysical explanation of the 'Necessary
Connexion' between Things
Aristotle describes the philosopher metaphysicist's view of God very
well.
For God is thought to be among the causes for all things
and to be a kind of principle ...
.. by making the gods the principles and making creation from the gods
...
"Suppose, however, that there is something that is eternal, unchanging and
apart. Does this putative Entity form the domain of a theoretical science? Yes,
of course, but not that either of natural science or of mathematics, but of a
science more fundamental than them both. The domain of natural science is things
that are in a way separate but which are eminently subject to change, and at
least part of the domain of mathematics is things that are not subject to change
but also not separable, in the sense of being separable from matter. But First
Science deals with things that are separable and are remote from change.
All the causes must be eternal, of course, but eternity must pertain more
specially still to the causes of First Science, operating, as they do,
to produce those effects of Divinity that are manifest even to us. Let
us, then, say that there are three forms of contemplative philosophy -
mathematics, natural science and theology. For who can doubt that, if there
is Divinity anywhere in the universe, then it is in the nature studied
by First Science that It is to be found. And it is also for the Supreme
Science to study the Supreme Genus. And contemplative study is to be chosen
above all other science, but it is this First Science of Theology that
we must prefer to all other kinds even of contemplation. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Effectively Aristotle says that the heart of Metaphysics lies in the study
of the One Absolute and Eternal Thing (God, Divinity) which Exists and
is the Cause of all other things.
Since Aristotle, God has been used in many systems of Metaphysics, but
invariably the word has been used to fill in gaps of our knowledge, which
is a negative solution to the analysis of God (Theology).
Descartes assumed three principle 'existents' - Matter, Mind and God, but
was never able to show the necessary and thus certain connections between
these three different things, and as Hume rightly says;
To have recourse to the veracity of the supreme Being, in
order to prove the veracity of our senses, is surely making a very unexpected
circuit. (Hume, 1737)
Newton also faced the Same problem;
It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should,
without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and
affect other matter without mutual contact.... That gravity should be innate,
inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another
at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else
by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another,
is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. (Sir Isaac
Newton)
Newton was quite religious, and thus tried to use 'God' to explain his
lack of knowledge of necessary connection;
Newton, following the example of the Cambridge Platonist
Henry More, justified his introduction of "Space" as a real,
infinite entity (and by implication, the existence of "hard, massy,
impenetrable, movable particles") by claiming that Absolute Space
is constituted by the Omnipresence of God.
Newton sought to make the action of Universal Gravitation across empty
space believable by references to the power of God, but as the investigation
of electricity, magnetism and chemical affinity developed in the 18th and
19th centuries attempts were made to find physical explanations for "action-at-a-distance".
In the theories of Boscovich and Faraday the dualism of Atoms and the Void
is replaced by an all-pervasive "field of force" in which there
are many mathematical centers. (This version also informs the account of
gravitation in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.) (Western Philosophy
and Philosophers , 1991)
Again
I repeat, the obvious and simple solution to these problems is to realize
that there are no separate 'particles' or 'fields' existing in Space, rather,
it is the Wave-Center of Spherical Standing Waves (SSWs) in Space that
creates this 'particle effect'. As a consequence, it is the In-Waves of
the Spherical Standing Wave in Space which are changing velocity as they
flow in through other SSWs in Space (particularly their high Wave-Amplitude
Wave-Centers) that causes the 'Field Effect" and the resultant acceleration
of the 'particle' (Wave-Center).
Thus postulating the existence of 'God' as an explanation for our lack
of knowledge of the necessary connection between things that exist (which
has been common throughout the history of Philosophy e.g. Newton, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant, to name but a few of many) is no solution and
is simply used to fill a gap in our knowledge.
This skepticism is particularly important for Cosmology where belief in
the 'Big Bang' (which has God/creation/religious connotations) has now
become famous and well established. Certainly the creation of our universe
from no Space and no Time (God?) is not in accordance with everyday phenomena,
nor with the Laws of Nature, and as it cannot be confirmed by direct observation
we would do well to remain open minded and skeptical. More than this though,
the Wave Structure of Matter explains a different cause for the redshift
with distance that leads to a perpetual finite spherical universe within
and infinite Space. Thus not only must we be skeptical of the 'Big Bang'
Cosmology, we must also be open minded and skeptically consider opposing
theories.
1.3 We should always keep an Open Mind
Hume, thought it possible that we could discover this 'secret' and 'necessary
connexion' between things. This knowledge would allow logic from first
principles (Metaphysics) to deduce events such that we would no longer
have to depend upon induction from repeated observation, that
... we could foresee the effect, even without experience;
and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint
of thought and reasoning.”
Now whether it be so or not, can only appear upon examination; and it is
incumbent on these philosophers to make good their assertion, by defining
or describing that necessity, and pointing it out to us in the operations
of material causes. (Hume, 1737)
In fact he is quite emphatic about remaining completely open minded about
whether the problem of Causation can be solved (contrary to many later
(lesser) philosophers and scientists who write that he proved it could
not be solved - a sadly common occurrence of a great mind being misunderstood
or misrepresented by later scientists!)
I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance
who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that
therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all
the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless
search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively
that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. (Hume,
1737)
This question (the problem of necessary connection and causation) I propose
as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties.
I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind
still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon
me. (Hume, 1737)
1.4 Our Guiding Metaphysical Principles Must be Simple, Logical and
Sensible
It must, however, be confessed, that this species of skepticism,
when more moderate, may be understood in a very reasonable sense, and is
a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy, by preserving a proper
impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices,
which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion. To begin with
clear and self-evident principles, to advance by timorous and sure steps,
to review frequently our conclusions, and examine accurately all their
consequences; though by these means we shall make both a slow and a short
progress in our systems; are the only methods, by which we can ever hope
to reach truth, and attain a proper stability and certainty in our determinations.
... we find in the course of nature that though the effects be many, the
principles from which they arise are commonly few and simple, and that
it is the sign of an unskilled naturalist to have recourse to a different
quality in order to explain every different operation. (Hume, 1737)
Currently, due to its failures and excesses, Metaphysics is scorned by
many philosophers as being impossible, but this need not be the case as
Einstein remarks;
In order that thinking might not degenerate into "metaphysics",
or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the
conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and
that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying
sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible.
Beyond that, however, the 'system' is (as regards logic) a free play with
symbols according to (logically) arbitrarily given rules of the game. ...
by his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive
way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy
in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose
which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising;
this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds,
which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the
senses.
However, I see no 'metaphysical' danger in taking the thing (the object
in the sense of physics) as an independent concept into the system together
with the proper spatio-temporal structure.
..it finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without 'metaphysics'.
(Albert Einstein, 1944)
Einstein is absolutely correct about Metaphysics, that it is meaningful
only if it begins from Principles which correspond sensibly to what we
observe about the behaviour of objects in this Space around us. And so
like Einstein, I am;
.. anxious to draw attention to the fact that this theory
is not speculative in origin; it owes its invention entirely to the desire
to make physical theory fit observed fact as well as possible. We have
here no revolutionary act but the natural continuation of a line that can
be traced through centuries. (Albert Einstein)
The Metaphysics of Space and Motion abides by these principles of simplicity
and connection to the sensible world of experience. As Aristotle so importantly
argues;
that among entities there must be some cause which moves
and combines things. (Aristotle)
Thus to simplify and understand the truth of any scientific/philosophical
work of Metaphysics, and thus of Cosmology, we must always ask three questions;
1. What do they say Exists (material substance, relation, process, etc.)
2. What are the 'Necessary Connections' between 'What Exists'.
3. How does this explain the Motion of Matter in Space, which we clearly
sense about us.
The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains these questions very simply
and sensibly;
This Space that we all Exist in and Sense around us Exists as a Wave-Medium,
and Matter Exists as a Spherical Standing Wave (which determines) the size
of our Finite Spherical Universe within an infinite Space. Thus the 'Necessary
Connections' Exist due to Space and the change in Velocity of the Spherical
(Ellipsoidal) In-Waves as they flow in through other matter - which necessarily
determines where they meet at their Wave-Center, and which we see as the
accelerated motion of the particle.
1.5 All Knowledge of Reality Ultimately Comes from Our Senses and Experience
of the Motion of Matter in Space
It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony;
and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature.
... But though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we
shall find, upon a nearer examination, that it is really confined within
very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts
to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or
diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience.
Here, therefore, is a proposition, which not only seems, in itself, simple
and intelligible; but, if a proper use were made of it, might render every
dispute equally intelligible, and banish all that jargon, which has so
long taken possession of metaphysical reasonings, and drawn disgrace upon
them. (Hume, 1737)
... the senses alone are not implicitly to be depended
on; we must correct their evidence by reason, and by considerations, derived
from the nature of the medium, the distance of the object, and the disposition
of the organ, in order to render them, within their sphere, the proper
criteria of truth and falsehood. (David Hume, 1737)
Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the
empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends
in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I absolutely agree with these two wonderful minds of human history. The
Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter exists
purely as a consequence of this desire to explain the things that we sense
by observation and experiment of Matter in the Space around us. (As simply
and sensibly as possible, while always accepting that while our senses
are limited and deceptive, they are also the final arbitrator of Truth
about Reality.
1.6 On 'Naive Realism' and that our Mind 'Represents' the World of our
Senses
The table, which we see, seems to diminish, as we remove
farther from it: but the real table, which exists independent of us, suffers
no alteration: it was, therefore, nothing but its image, which was present
to the mind. These are the obvious dictates of reason; and no man, who
reflects, ever doubted, that the existences, which we consider, when we
say, this house and that tree, are nothing but perceptions in the mind,
and fleeting copies or representations of other existences, which remain
uniform and independent. (Hume, 1737)
It is true that our mind somehow 'Represents' the world of our senses,
this has been known since the time of early Greek and Indian Philosophy.
A red apple is only red in our Minds, in reality it exists as a collection
of many trillions of Wave-Centers (particles) that are trapped in particular
frequencies of cyclical Motion (orbits/wave functions). These oscillating
Wave-Centers also must have oscillations of their In and Out Waves which
can 'resonantly couple' with the oscillations of Wave-Centers in my eye.
This explains how I am able to see the apple and its particular frequencies
of wave-motion, but I cannot explain how our mind 'Represents' frequencies
of waves as colours. (And I would greatly appreciate any thought on this
subject of 'Representation' and how our mind 'creates/constructs' colours,
tastes, feelings, etc.)
It seems evident, that men are carried, by a natural instinct
or prepossession, to repose faith in their senses; and that, without any
reasoning, or even almost before the use of reason, we always suppose an
external universe, which depends not on our perception, but would exist,
though we and every sensible creature were absent or annihilated. Even
the animal creation are governed by a like opinion, and preserve this belief
of external objects, in all their thoughts, designs and actions. ... This
very table, which we see white, and which we feel hard, is believed to
exist, independent of our perception, and to be something external to our
mind, which perceives it. Our presence bestows not being on it: our absence
does not annihilate it. It preserves its existence uniform and entire,
independent of the situation of intelligent beings, who perceive or contemplate
it. (Hume, 1737)
It is both obvious and hard to prove that, as Hume says, the real world
does exist independently of our ideas (thus rejecting extreme Idealism).
Evolution tells us that matter existed in Space and was evolving well before
our existence (just think back several billion years) thus if Humanity
(and our ideas) did not exist, Matter in this Space of the Universe would
still continue to exist, just as it did prior to our evolution and existence.
A few more relevant quotes from Hume (who was a great skeptical philosopher).
It is universally allowed by modern enquirers, that all
the sensible qualities of objects, such as hard, soft, hot, cold, white,
black, ... are merely secondary, and exist not in the objects themselves,
but are perceptions of the mind, without any external archetype or model,
which they represent. If this be allowed, with regard to secondary qualities,
it must also follow, with regard to the supposed primary qualities of extension
and solidity; nor can the latter be any more entitled to that denomination
than the former. (David Hume)
.. if it be a principle of reason, that all sensible qualities
are in the mind, not in the object. Bereave matter of all its intelligible
qualities, both primary and secondary, you in a manner annihilate it, and
leave only a certain unknown, inexplicable something, as the cause of our
perceptions .. (David Hume)
But that all his arguments, (Dr. Berkeley), though otherwise
intended, are, in reality, merely sceptical, appears from this, that they
admit of no answer and produce no conviction. Their only effect is to cause
that momentary amazement and irresolution and confusion, which is the result
of scepticism. (David Hume)
Perhaps it is fitting to end this section with a quote from Berkeley.
Certainly his aims of giving certainty to knowledge were admirable (he
disliked atheists, skeptics and abstraction!). However his Idealism fails
(as it ultimately depends on God to connect the many human minds and their
common perceptions of the world).
Philosophy being nothing else but the study of wisdom and
truth, it may with reason be expected, that those who have spent most time
and pains in it should enjoy a greater calm and serenity of mind, a greater
clearness and evidence of knowledge, and be less disturbed with doubt and
difficulties than other men.
Yet so it is we see the illiterate bulk of mankind that walk the high-road
of plain, common sense and are governed by the dictates of nature, for
the most part easy and undisturbed. To them nothing that is familiar appears
unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any want
of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of becoming sceptics.
But no sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light
of a superior principle, to reason, meditate and reflect on the nature
of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds, concerning those
things which before we seemed fully to comprehend. Prejudices and errors
of sense do from all parts discover themselves to our view; and endeavouring
to correct these by reason we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes,
difficulties, and inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we
advance in speculation; till at length, having wandered through many intricate
mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit down
in a forlorn scepticism. (George Berkeley)
Concluding Remarks
A sensible skepticism is important if we are not to be deceived. However,
at times blind skepticism causes harm for new knowledge. Clearly our Metaphysical
Principles are important and necessary. From the Foundations of One thing,
Space, existing as a Wave-Medium, I am quite sure that we can now proceed
to satisfy these skeptical requirements and demonstrate that the problem
of 'what exists' and their 'necessary connexion' and causation has been
solved.
I absolutely agree with Kant that this skeptical method of science is
profoundly important to Humanity;
It will render an important service to reason, by substituting
the certainty of scientific method for that random groping after results
without the guidance of principles, which has hitherto characterized the
pursuit of metaphysical studies. It will render an important service to
the inquiring mind of youth, by leading the student to apply his powers
to the cultivation of genuine science, instead of wasting them, as at present,
on speculations which can never lead to any result, or on the idle attempt
to invent new ideas and opinions. But, above all, it will confer an inestimable
benefit on morality and religion, by showing that all the objections urged
against them may be silenced for ever by the Socratic method, that is to
say, by proving the ignorance of the objector. For, as the world has never
been, and no doubt, never will be, without a system of metaphysics of one
kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy
to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error. (Kant,
1781)
Related Pages on Sceptics / Scepticism
http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html -
A good article on valid and invalid skepticism. From the site:
Many who loudly advertise themselves as skeptics are
actually disbelievers. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who
refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever,
on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain
idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence
to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics,
I will follow Truzzi and call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.
Metaphysics: Skepticism
Quotes from Famous Skeptics / Skeptical Philosophers
Discussion on the Metaphysics of Skepticism,
Philosophy as the Study of Truth, Reality & the Certainty of Knowledge.
The Good & Bad of Skepticism (Scientific Minds are Skeptical but Open).
RSS
"When
forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time
and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical
objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended.
In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle
can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or
the energy density are particularly high. ...
