Anti-Skeptical Argument Of The Brain In A Vat

Improved Essays
Approaching the conflictions regarding the controversial skeptical argument of the Brain in A Vat there can be many flaws or holes seen within the argument itself, Moore’s Proof, the Anti-Skeptical argument, and Modus Ponens. Throughout all of these examples many flaws or counter examples arise that can either help or reject the argument by themselves, but when using all together you get a better stance on the argument. Upon closer examination of premise one, I know that I have hands only if I know I am not a brain in a vat, this statement could be false itself because what if even if I was in a “Vat” I wasn’t just a brain but an entire body, seen within the movie The Matrix. Either way I personally don’t believe there has been an evidence to either disbelieve or believe this theory. …show more content…
The first part given for the Modus Ponens is, If I don’t know that I’m not a brain in a vat, I don’t know that I have hands, which can yet again be completely plausibly due to common sense. If I don’t know the answer to something that completely involves another how is it possible to know the answer to the second portion of the question? Another example can be found in simple math, if I don’t know how to do simple addition how do I figure out what 2+2 is equal to? Without the knowledge to answer the first overall question it is near impossible to prove specific ones. Paired with the second portion of the Modus Ponens, I don’t know that I’m not a brain in a vat, the conclusion is easily derived from basic knowledge of the arguments. Based on the two above statements that were given it becomes easier to pull out that in fact I don’t know if I have hands at all. Together these series of statements most clearly prove my point. In a world of “I don’t know” how would it ever be possible to come to a conclusion that can be

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Bonjour's Criticism

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The first are the many examples which seem to imply some sort of a priori insight; they seem prima facie difficult to explain empirically (Bonjour, and Devitt 100). The most telling examples of this are the truths of math and logic, such as: "nothing can be red all over and green all over at the same time (BonJour, and Devitt 101). People seem to intuitively grasp these truths, which is something that seems difficult to explain empirically. There are also indirect empirical beliefs that depend on a priori beliefs. These include: beliefs about the unobserved past, beliefs about unobserved situations in the present, beliefs about the future and beliefs in the laws of nature (BonJour, 102).…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As Swinburne stated that there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. The Criteria that needs to be met according to him, to prove or disprove the existence of God is meant by only the personal explanation which gives us the ultimate explanation for the existence of the World. However, while this may convince many individual that Theism is indeed correct, I would disagree because our interpretations depend on how much we are prepared to trust a posteriori knowledge. “For those who believe, no proof is necessary.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To conclude on this argument, the points made were that there is no valid reason for us to be given enough knowledge for us to have figured out that our experiences are illusions, that the mind is far too intricate to be designed by technology that does not possess these properties itself, for us to live with the belief that we are brains in vats may lead us to become ambiguous with everything and lack assurance, that in order for us to create a meaning for something we had to have perceived it, that a sceptic would not trust in the idea if he or she was placed in a situation of danger, and finally, that how our world works is revolved around our participation and actions. Proving we have self-control, we can contemplate our decisions and we can choose our…

    • 1375 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Descartes is known for doubting physical objects and people around him. He argues anything that can be doubted should be treated as false. The term knowledge to Descartes means an event or occurrence that is true. Knowledge requires certainty, and without that certainty, it cannot exist. Descartes’ dream hypothesis and evil demon hypothesis show that anything in our world can be fabricated.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Descartes would believe that since being aware of one’s self is innate, then the idea of one is placed in everyone’s mind; this includes the individual without sense perception. From there, the mind can reflect and infer of notions that if one, then others. Mathematics would in fact be innate. Although this argument does not clearly expose Descartes’s argument to be incorrect, it does cause some uncertainty to whether the mind has the idea of mathematics innately at all. And it if so, this would effect all of his arguments against sense perceptions.…

    • 1735 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Your second body paragraph does not have a clear, logical argument. It only talks about the DADT Act; however, it does include evidence from an outside source. In order to make your argument more valid, add some more reasoning for your argument. Is the topic important enough to warrant a full paragraph? No, I do not think the topic is important enough to warrant a full paragraph because it does not have a solid argument.…

    • 804 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Liar Paradox Analysis

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Because of this, one would not know whether the statement is actually true or false since there is a contradiction between the two possible answers. There are many possible solutions to solve the liar paradox, and one of them is to ban self-referential and indexical statements. A self-referential…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Math As A Language

    • 1129 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Math helps you let exchange information, but you can’t express emotions or thoroughly communicate through the usage of math. Math is limited to be used as a language, you can mostly use math to exchange information that is numerical related. Math lets you use variable to replace the words but you can’t always use variables to communicate. Even if you get around that, the emotions would be obliterated from the language. However, math can still be used as for a basic process of exchanging information or communicating of the numerical universe.…

    • 1129 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We Exist By Rene Descartes

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The fact that we are able to think, leads us to conclude that we certainly exist. Even though I agree with his famous saying: “I think, I exist” (Descartes 53), I still argue that we cannot be deceived about the concept of arithmetics and geometry. It may in fact be true that my vision would fail to show me distinct numbers of something, but the concept of (X) amount of things cannot be changed in my mind by an outside force. Since “counting” is the action of thinking in a numerical form, then the numbers derived from this act would be incomprehensible unless the concept is recognized as existing and true. Other simple natures such as shapes, can be substituted for “numbers”, if we follow the same line of thought.…

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It implies that most of our beliefs are false, which allows for the generalisation that none of our beliefs are good enough to count as knowledge. One example of a sceptical argument is the infinite regress argument. This argument starts with the premise that whenever we claim to know or justifiably believe something, we imply that we are in possession of good supporting or justifying reasons for our claim. For any claim to knowledge, it may legitimately be asked: How do you know? One of the most natural way to justify a belief is by producing a justificatory argument: belief A is justified by citing some other belief B, from which A is inferable.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays