In his article, “Cartesian Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation,” Jonathan Vogel breaks down the idea of Cartesian Skepticism, explaining that it stems from the idea that our beliefs about the external world can be backed by multiple explanations for our experiences, leading to doubt about the accuracy of our beliefs. He goes on to detail the idea of inference to the best explanation, which is a reasoning process of choosing between common-sense beliefs and skeptical beliefs as the best fit explanation for our experiences. Vogel argues that the simplicity and coherent explanation of common-sense beliefs make for a better hypothesis than the hypothesis composed of skeptical beliefs. In this paper, I will explain and evaluate Vogel’s
…show more content…
In summary, Jonathan Vogel’s breakdown of Cartesian Skepticism and explanationist reply to it provide us with an argument on why the real-world hypothesis is superior to the computer-simulated hypothesis as an explanation to our lived experiences. I began by defining Cartesian Skepticism as a systematic process which questions the accuracy of our beliefs about the external world due to multiple possible explanations for our experiences. I then explained Vogel's concept of inference to the best explanation, which involves choosing between common-sense beliefs and skeptical beliefs as the best explanation for our experiences. Then, I presented Vogel's argument that the simplicity and coherence of common-sense beliefs make them superior to skeptical alternatives. I described the real-world hypothesis as a framework based on common-sense beliefs, contrasting it with the computer-simulation hypothesis suggesting a simulated reality. Next, I outlined an objection to Vogel's argument, focusing on the unsoundness of the premise that simpler explanations are superior to complicated
In summary, Jonathan Vogel’s breakdown of Cartesian Skepticism and explanationist reply to it provide us with an argument on why the real-world hypothesis is superior to the computer-simulated hypothesis as an explanation to our lived experiences. I began by defining Cartesian Skepticism as a systematic process which questions the accuracy of our beliefs about the external world due to multiple possible explanations for our experiences. I then explained Vogel's concept of inference to the best explanation, which involves choosing between common-sense beliefs and skeptical beliefs as the best explanation for our experiences. Then, I presented Vogel's argument that the simplicity and coherence of common-sense beliefs make them superior to skeptical alternatives. I described the real-world hypothesis as a framework based on common-sense beliefs, contrasting it with the computer-simulation hypothesis suggesting a simulated reality. Next, I outlined an objection to Vogel's argument, focusing on the unsoundness of the premise that simpler explanations are superior to complicated