I cited this in a paper I have under review about the ethics of presenting certain types of skeptical arguments to non-skeptics. It’s really good, I recommend it to all.
Love your blog Amos. One time I told a (non-philosophy) friend about some skeptical arguments, not even endorsing them. He told me later that he lost faith in reality for a bit, and ran into the street just to see what might happen. This sounds like a bulls—t story but it really happened. Some people are way too fragile mentally to deal with even entertaining skeptical arguments, and it might be hard to predict if someone falls into this subset before telling them.
I usually call radical skeptics "nihilists," but this is a more accurate term. Radical skepticism is often employed as selfish defense-mechanism against the risk and fear of having to make choices, and can be animated by desire for superiority over others. Radical skepticism signals aloofness, which is a symbol of aristocratic status. Ironically, it is the ultimate "luxury belief," despite professing no belief at all!
We have no reason to believe the brains-in-a-vat hypothesis makes any sense (or is even vaguely plausible), on a scientific level, for at least two very important reasons.
Also, radical skepticism itself as presented here is not nearly radical enough. A version for pikers, as it were.
Man I sound like an asshole when I state conclusions rather than arguments! Sorry about that. If and when I write up something decent, I'll post a link.
Thanks to Amos for pointing me this way, though. I do miss philosophy sometimes.
I actually call conspiracy nuts as suffering from 'self-fulfilling paranoia'.
In neo-Pyrrhonist terms they are rashly treating skeptical methods dogmatically, which is as rash as dogmatically believing X (pun also unintended). This is primarily an ethical perspective even as it is expressed in a soteriological (self-care) framework. I will read the paper with interest.
I cited this in a paper I have under review about the ethics of presenting certain types of skeptical arguments to non-skeptics. It’s really good, I recommend it to all.
Love your blog Amos. One time I told a (non-philosophy) friend about some skeptical arguments, not even endorsing them. He told me later that he lost faith in reality for a bit, and ran into the street just to see what might happen. This sounds like a bulls—t story but it really happened. Some people are way too fragile mentally to deal with even entertaining skeptical arguments, and it might be hard to predict if someone falls into this subset before telling them.
I usually call radical skeptics "nihilists," but this is a more accurate term. Radical skepticism is often employed as selfish defense-mechanism against the risk and fear of having to make choices, and can be animated by desire for superiority over others. Radical skepticism signals aloofness, which is a symbol of aristocratic status. Ironically, it is the ultimate "luxury belief," despite professing no belief at all!
We have no reason to believe the brains-in-a-vat hypothesis makes any sense (or is even vaguely plausible), on a scientific level, for at least two very important reasons.
Also, radical skepticism itself as presented here is not nearly radical enough. A version for pikers, as it were.
Man I sound like an asshole when I state conclusions rather than arguments! Sorry about that. If and when I write up something decent, I'll post a link.
Thanks to Amos for pointing me this way, though. I do miss philosophy sometimes.
I actually call conspiracy nuts as suffering from 'self-fulfilling paranoia'.
In neo-Pyrrhonist terms they are rashly treating skeptical methods dogmatically, which is as rash as dogmatically believing X (pun also unintended). This is primarily an ethical perspective even as it is expressed in a soteriological (self-care) framework. I will read the paper with interest.