And then there’s skepticism, arguably the only “correct” position of Chisholm’s three in that it’s the only one that seemingly doesn’t require assuming something on faith. Spoiler alert: it does because it still needs some reason to prefer skepticism over the alternatives, thus it still ends up begging the question. Skepticism is also not very useful because even though it might not lead to incorrectly believing that a false thing is true, it does this by not allowing one to believe anything is true!
Which is a problem if you have good reason to believe some things in general are true. If you do, you might as well believe whichever specific things are most plausible , even if they are not fully justified.
You have characterised scepticism as a nothing-is-true position. But “it is true that nothing is true” s self defeating. If the problem of the criterion means that nothing is well justified, then strong claims should be avoided , including strong negative claims like “nothing is true”. So scepticism done right is moderation in all things.
But “it is true that nothing is true” s self defeating
Correct; this is another way in which skepticism begs the question.
If the problem of the criterion means that nothing is well justified, then strong claims should be avoided , including strong negative claims like “nothing is true”. So scepticism done right is moderation in all things.
Right, the kind of “skepticism” I’m talking about here is different from everyday skepticism which is more like reserving judgement until one learns more. Skepticism here is meant to point to a position you might also call “nihilism”, but that’s not the term Chisholm uses and I stuck with his terminology around this.
Correct; this is another way in which skepticism begs the question
I said it was self defeating which is a different problem.
Right, the kind of “skepticism” I’m talking about here is different from everyday skepticism which is more like reserving judgement until one learns more.
I know it is different. The point is that it is better.
Which is a problem if you have good reason to believe some things in general are true. If you do, you might as well believe whichever specific things are most plausible , even if they are not fully justified.
You have characterised scepticism as a nothing-is-true position. But “it is true that nothing is true” s self defeating. If the problem of the criterion means that nothing is well justified, then strong claims should be avoided , including strong negative claims like “nothing is true”. So scepticism done right is moderation in all things.
Correct; this is another way in which skepticism begs the question.
Right, the kind of “skepticism” I’m talking about here is different from everyday skepticism which is more like reserving judgement until one learns more. Skepticism here is meant to point to a position you might also call “nihilism”, but that’s not the term Chisholm uses and I stuck with his terminology around this.
I said it was self defeating which is a different problem.
I know it is different. The point is that it is better.