APPEARANCE, REALITY AND SKEPTICISM


It was objected in previous class that all of the examples used in class to establish the difference between the subjective and objective, between appearance and reality, all presuppose that we live in a material world, that all is as it seems, and is based on beliefs learned through the senses. This might appear to be a case of circular reasoning (also known as the fallacy of begging the question): proving the distinction between the subjective and objective with references to examples which implicitly assume that there is such a distinction. It would be like attempting to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible by quoting 1 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired of God…”

But why is circular reasoning bad? Isn't it because a fallacious argument doesn’t prove anything? What does it mean to prove something? Doesn’t it mean to establish something as true about reality, distinct from mere belief or opinion about what could be true or might be true? An argument goes from assumed premises to a conclusion. The conclusion goes beyond those premises to prove something we didn’t already know. Of course, the conclusion is only as good as its premises. So, we need to have good reasons to think that those premises are true. But how do we know those reasons are any good? We will need arguments for them as well. Does this go back infinitely? The Greek skeptic Sextus Empiricus argued that it did and suggested that we always withhold judgement and never assent to any proposition. But again, skepticism is a problem for knowledge, not truth. To withhold judgement is to avoid claiming to know the truth about reality. A skeptic might believe or suspect something is true but despairs of ever proving it. He understands that there may be a difference between how things appear and how they really are and doesn’t see how we get from one to the other.

Skepticism assumes the correspondence theory of truth, the distinction between appearance and reality. That’s part of what I means to be a skeptic. When you raise an objection to any claim, you are presupposing a distinction between the subjective and the objective. You are questioning whether the statement made is objectively true. You aren’t questioning whether it is believed by the subject or you. You already know what you might believe about it and, unless the other person is lying or playing Devil’s advocate, you’re not questioning whether the other person believes what he's saying. You are questioning whether his beliefs and statements match up with reality. Even if you claim no one can know whether any belief matches up with reality, you are still implicitly assuming that there such a thing as reality as distinct from appearances.

An alternative to the skeptic’s infinite regress is that there are foundations to knowledge, beliefs which are self-evident, self-justifying and axiomatic. One such belief is that a contradiction can’t be true. You can know with certainty that it is not both raining and not raining outside, given a precise meaning of the term “raining.” You can know with certainty that the statement “My twin brother helped me bake a cake that I baked all by myself” is false. This is sometimes referred to as a priori knowledge, knowledge which is independent of sense experience. You do not need to investigate whether such a case exists, sniff for the aromas of baking, look for crumbs or dirty pans hidden underneath the sink. You can know with certainty that I didn’t bake a cake all by myself with the help of my twin brother without even knowing if I have a twin brother. That statement is contradictory and could not be true in any possible world. It is logically impossible. Basic logical truths, such as that a contradiction can't be true, are self-evident and not provable by anything more basic. If you don't accept that objective truth is independent of subjective belief, then you are incapable of rational discourse. You can't object, dispute or disagree with any statement, nor can you concur, support or agree with any statement. You can't gather or evaluate evidence in favor of or against any proposition being true. All of this assumes an objective truth, facts of the matter, which you are trying to get it using the tools of reason and evidence. Of course, if you're a relativist who thinks that everything you believe is already "true for you," why would you bother? Thinking is hard work. So is research, theorizing and articulating your ideas before a critical audience.

Some students have objected to my cake example by suggesting that perhaps my brother both helped me and didn’t help me by playing on the ambiguity of the term “helped.” Maybe he helped me with moral support. However, we must remember that the Law of Excluded Middle says that any well-qualified, meaningful proposition is either true or false. If the term “helped” is vague, then it’s not “well-qualified.” Only sentences with a determine meaning must have a determinate truth value (true or false). Once we get precise on what I mean by “helped,” you can’t play games with language and try to make a contradiction true. When you attempt to take a vague term and substitute one meaning in one place in an argument and another in another place, that’s known as the fallacy of equivocation. You are “equivocating” on a vague term and using it to mean one thing in one place and another thing in another place in an argument. It’s the same fallacy if you try to do it in the same sentence.

So, distinction between appearance and reality, the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the general method of using logical argumentation to build systematic theories about the world are all foundational to philosophy and any of the other academic disciplines which emerged from it.