College Philosophy, Extreme Skeptical Theory and Its Implications
Extreme skeptical theory says that there is no truth, only opinion. I cannot know whether murder is right or wrong; I can only have the opinion as to whether murder is right or wrong. The extreme skeptic points to the history of knowledge as his first piece of evidence. In man’s history, countless theories have been accepted by society as indisputable truths, only to be disproved by another scientific theory whose eventual fate is the same as the former. The extreme skeptic points out that there is no progress in science, and that man is no less perplexed about philosophical issues than he was when the issues were first raised. As further evidence, the skeptic asserts that “truth” to a man is nothing more than what his culture conditions him to believe. For example, Copernicus’ theory about the solar system was rejected in the 16th century because people during that time were cultured to believe that man had to be at the center of the universe. Finally, the skeptic argues that knowledge and evidence are based on facts, which come from our senses; our senses, however, are notoriously unreliable.
There are two major flaws in the skeptic’s argument. First, if there is no truth, only opinion, then there is no reason to believe that the skeptics argument is fact instead of merely opinion. It must be opinion, according to the argument. The skeptic says, “The truth is, there is no truth,” and in that statement he contradicts himself. Another criticism of extreme skepticism is that its implications would make life nearly impossible. We as human beings can’t live without accepting certain facts; for example, I know that to leave a room I must use the door, and that to live I must eat and drink. If everyone were to doubt these fundamental facts about life, there would be people running into walls and starving themselves to death.
Some philosophers argue that we may not be human beings at all; that we may be nothing more than brains in jars duped into experiences by a mad scientist who, by stimulating our disembodied brains, creates for us a false reality. Proponents of this theory point to virtual reality and advancing technology as proof that it could be done. When virtual reality is considered, it seems it will not be long before scientists could fool a human brain as to what is real and what is not. The most startling evidence for the brain-in-a-jar theory comes from the research of Dr. Wilder Penfield. While operating on conscious patients’ brains, Dr. Penfield found that he could simulate vivid experiences in his patients by touching a probe to different parts of their brains. Proponents of the theory point to this as evidence for their arguments. However, there is a major flaw in this type of argument. If the theory is true, then knowledge for us is impossible, because all “facts” are simply what the scientist wants us to believe. If knowledge is impossible, there is no way to make a factual argument for the above theory. Therefore, the brain-in-the-vat theory is self-refuting.
“How can we know that electrodes implanted by a mad scientist are not the source of all our experiences? And if we can’t be sure about that, we can’t really know anything.” The basic logical flaw in this type of argument is that it disproves itself with its own arguments. If the above theory is true, knowledge for us is impossible, because all facts are merely what the scientist wants us to think and experience. If there are no real facts, then there can be no argument based on fact, which means there can be no knowledge or valid arguments. The brain-in-the-vat theory is always possible, but to claim that it is true based on the above argument is to contradict oneself.
