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.
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.