The Problem With Cartesian Skepticism

2. The problem with Cartesian skepticism is that there is not enough evidence to prove that the world around us is always false. Descartes is trying to prove his point off of logic instead of actual evidence. Descartes is putting too much faith on the mind over the physical world. When he explains an evil being manipulating our thoughts and senses he still cannot prove that the evil being actually exists. So Descartes is still going off of assumptions to prove his theory. He tries to resolve this problem by doubting everything around us in the physical world. Descartes proposes that if we doubt everything, the only thing we can be certain of is that we are alive (in the mind) because we can think (I think therefore I am). He has three propositions …show more content…
Popper believed in a scientific method approach. He believed that everything that we believe to be true must be able to be proven false and tested. If the tests do not prove the belief to be false then we can continue to believe in it. While Berkeley believed that all of our knowledge comes from our senses and without our senses we would not be able to have knowledge. I believe that Popper has the strongest argument because he is not limiting his argument where as the other two are. For instance, with popper you can believe in anything as long as it is proven false. While Berkeley limits you to just the senses while their can still be thought outside of the senses and Descartes does not have enough physical evidence. I believe that the external and internal world is in conjunction with one another. In order for us to be alive we must have both for the body cannot live without the mind, and the mind cannot live without the body. The mind and the body both formulate a recipe which allows us to live with reason and a physical body, but our knowledge on what is true or not cannot just be left to one of the aspects that keep you alive. For instance, only your senses or only your