Doubting is a good thing. Doubting with method is a better thing - To doubt - 1/3
Through this set of posts I’m going to deal with the Art of doubt as a method to build reliable knowledge. Then, the study of doubt will be completed by a journey about the scientific method. Also, practical illustrations of this method applied to daily life will be given, in the biggest part from my personal experience. Finally, the main objective of those posts is giving you some tools and key points in order to make you doubt about your beliefs that you can consider (now) as the truth.
Today, we are going to answer the next questions: What does “doubting” mean? What are the main ways to use the doubt?
- What does “doubting” mean?
Doubting refers to the employment of doubt. Doubt is opposed to certainty. Certainty applied to an idea entails dogma. This notion of dogma is defined by “a tenet which is not supposed to questioning.” For example, religions such as Christianity or Islam are based on the notion of dogma. Therefore, doubt suggests the questioning, instability of doctrines which is now objectionable.
- What are the main philosophies where doubt is used?
Foremost, excuse me for disappointing you, but I won’t give you a single answer. Indeed, there are many ways to use doubt. Here, I will introduce two main philosophies where doubt is the central element. First of all, relativism. Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism-1. This concept would come from Ancient Greece and is usually credited to the sophist Protagoras (c. 450 BC). Let me remind you that a sophist is someone who uses a misleading and deceptive argumentation. It’s highly probable that you have already heard someone who argues the right “to think what he wants”. For example, my aunt who is religious often claims that right about her conception of Evolution which is totally against the scientific consensus. My answer is always the same: It is not because you believe that something is true that is true. In this respect, if you want to find the truth, condition for happiness according to Platon (c. 400 BC), relativism does not seem to be the best solution. However, beyond these moral considerations is relativism logically stable and correct? Unfortunately, for my aunt the answer is negative. Moreover, Physicist and epistemologist (person who studies how knowledge is built) Alan Sokal, demonstrated the self-contradiction of relativism very easily. Indeed, if the truth doesn’t not exist, then relativism is not true.
The second thought system is named skepticism. We must distinguish philosophical skepticism and scientific skepticism. First point is accorded to the philosopher Pyrrhon (c. 300 BC) (subsquently completed by Sextus Empirucus’ work). Pyrrhonism’s main proposition is : “Our sensations and opinions are neither true nor false”-2. The goal of Pyrrhon is to reach “ataraxia” (peace of mind) for each one of us. The Pyrrhon’s thesis warns us about the fallibility of our senses. Also, he seems to introduce the notion of credence (i.e. how much a person believes that a proposition is true-3). Finally, he shows the skeptic as someone who is always looking for rejecting the dogma. However, the Greek philosopher doesn’t not give us more information about a method or something like that. On the other hand scientific skepticism originates from addition between critical thinking and scientific method. In addition, the scientific skepticism that we usually consider is newer than pyrrhonism. In his book Essais sceptiques Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) sums up this skepticism through the following sentence: “Admit nothing without evidence and suspend judgment as long as the evidence is lacking.”
Since the early of the 20th century, scientific method have been involved in the skeptical movement that has deeply become scientific skepticism. Finally, we now have a frame of thought that rejects dogmatism, non-controversial (stable) and which includes a method.
Into the next post, I am going to show you why “the scientific method”? How could we apply and use the introduced frame of thought daily in order to have true knowledge instead true beliefs ;-).
See you soon !
Sketpically.
Erwan Meunier.
Sources :
1 – Relativism. Wikipedia [enquiry date 04.04.2020]. Disponible sur : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
2 РJOSSET Julien. Le pyrrhonisme : D̩finition. La-Philo [enquiry date le 06.04.2020]. Disponible sur : https://la-philosophie.com/le-pyrrhonisme-definition - RICHARD Goulet. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques - Volume 5 . CNRS Edition, 1994. Partie 2, p327
3- Credence (statistics). Wikipedia [enquiry date 04.04.2020]. Avalaible on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(statistics)
Today, we are going to answer the next questions: What does “doubting” mean? What are the main ways to use the doubt?
- What does “doubting” mean?
Doubting refers to the employment of doubt. Doubt is opposed to certainty. Certainty applied to an idea entails dogma. This notion of dogma is defined by “a tenet which is not supposed to questioning.” For example, religions such as Christianity or Islam are based on the notion of dogma. Therefore, doubt suggests the questioning, instability of doctrines which is now objectionable.
- What are the main philosophies where doubt is used?
Foremost, excuse me for disappointing you, but I won’t give you a single answer. Indeed, there are many ways to use doubt. Here, I will introduce two main philosophies where doubt is the central element. First of all, relativism. Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism-1. This concept would come from Ancient Greece and is usually credited to the sophist Protagoras (c. 450 BC). Let me remind you that a sophist is someone who uses a misleading and deceptive argumentation. It’s highly probable that you have already heard someone who argues the right “to think what he wants”. For example, my aunt who is religious often claims that right about her conception of Evolution which is totally against the scientific consensus. My answer is always the same: It is not because you believe that something is true that is true. In this respect, if you want to find the truth, condition for happiness according to Platon (c. 400 BC), relativism does not seem to be the best solution. However, beyond these moral considerations is relativism logically stable and correct? Unfortunately, for my aunt the answer is negative. Moreover, Physicist and epistemologist (person who studies how knowledge is built) Alan Sokal, demonstrated the self-contradiction of relativism very easily. Indeed, if the truth doesn’t not exist, then relativism is not true.
The second thought system is named skepticism. We must distinguish philosophical skepticism and scientific skepticism. First point is accorded to the philosopher Pyrrhon (c. 300 BC) (subsquently completed by Sextus Empirucus’ work). Pyrrhonism’s main proposition is : “Our sensations and opinions are neither true nor false”-2. The goal of Pyrrhon is to reach “ataraxia” (peace of mind) for each one of us. The Pyrrhon’s thesis warns us about the fallibility of our senses. Also, he seems to introduce the notion of credence (i.e. how much a person believes that a proposition is true-3). Finally, he shows the skeptic as someone who is always looking for rejecting the dogma. However, the Greek philosopher doesn’t not give us more information about a method or something like that. On the other hand scientific skepticism originates from addition between critical thinking and scientific method. In addition, the scientific skepticism that we usually consider is newer than pyrrhonism. In his book Essais sceptiques Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) sums up this skepticism through the following sentence: “Admit nothing without evidence and suspend judgment as long as the evidence is lacking.”
Since the early of the 20th century, scientific method have been involved in the skeptical movement that has deeply become scientific skepticism. Finally, we now have a frame of thought that rejects dogmatism, non-controversial (stable) and which includes a method.
Into the next post, I am going to show you why “the scientific method”? How could we apply and use the introduced frame of thought daily in order to have true knowledge instead true beliefs ;-).
See you soon !
Sketpically.
Erwan Meunier.
Sources :
1 – Relativism. Wikipedia [enquiry date 04.04.2020]. Disponible sur : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
2 РJOSSET Julien. Le pyrrhonisme : D̩finition. La-Philo [enquiry date le 06.04.2020]. Disponible sur : https://la-philosophie.com/le-pyrrhonisme-definition - RICHARD Goulet. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques - Volume 5 . CNRS Edition, 1994. Partie 2, p327
3- Credence (statistics). Wikipedia [enquiry date 04.04.2020]. Avalaible on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(statistics)
Comments
Post a Comment