Difference Between Common Sense And Skepticism

Superior Essays
Hypothetical Example of Common Sense vs. Skepticism Common sense can be described as trusting our senses and accepting what we know as knowledge. Skepticism is nearly the opposite and can be described as questioning or doubting unempirical knowledge, beliefs, or opinions stated as facts and refrains from claims of truth or knowledge. Skepticism, however, does not state that truth or knowledge is impossible. The difference between these two philosophical ideas can be seen in examples of everyday life. Using a hypothetical example of skepticism and common sense as well as the viewpoints of Moore and Lehrer, I will demonstrate the difference between skepticism and common sense. A hypothetical example that illustrates the difference between skepticism and common sense is two people; one is a believer in common sense, the other a skeptic, examining a possibly poisonous mushroom. A skeptic named Lucy and a common sense believer named Chloe were walking through the woods when Lucy found a wild mushroom. Lucy picked the mushroom and tried to eat it with very little consideration. Upon seeing this Chloe knocked the mushroom out of Lucy’s hand and shouted, “You can’t eat that Lucy it’s poisonous!” Lucy replied, “But how do you know that the mushroom is poisonous?” “Look, see how the top is rounded and …show more content…
I agree with the common sense side of the argument especially in this situation because look the way they do for a reason. A poisonous mushroom is a certain color or shape or has a specific smell because they are poisonous and those things are a warning to predators. I mostly believe that I can trust that what I see is real if something were in front of me I wouldn’t doubt that it is real. I think this because doubting everything in the world makes living life impossible because without common sense life lacks

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “The Mistrust of Science” by Atul Gawande is a commencement address at the California Institute of Technology. Atul Gawande calls upon the institutes graduates to take a stance and defend the common misconceptions and myths about scientific issues concerning today’s society. The commencement’s main goal was to use a logical thought process to defend the scientific evidence against common misconception. For example, Atul Gawande says “They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies… when scientists produce one level of certainty; the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.” Atul claims that pseudoscientists deploy a poor sense of logical reasoning to mislead the public, which cannot be backed up by hard scientific evidence.…

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    to some extent like Dewey, philosopher Harvey Siegel (1988) believed that critical thinking is the result of action. He held on the conception of two dimensions of critical thinking, stating that a critical thinker is “one who is appropriately moved by reasons” (p. 32). His description, then, includes two dimensions—a reason assessment component and a critical attitude component. The reason assessment component involves the critical thinker being able to understand and put into practice the principles governing the assessment of reasons, where the critical attitude component implies that the critical thinker embodies certain dispositions and habits of the mind. Siegel called it a “critical spirit” (p.…

    • 107 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cole Luberda PHIL 1100 04 December 12th Throughout the course of this paper, the topic of skepticism will be discussed in multiple ways. First skepticism will be introduced in John Pollock’s short article A Brain in a Vat. Then the difference between ordinary incredulity and general philosophical skepticism will be discussed. Finally, the various general philosophical skepticism will be analyzed and opinions of arguments will be discussed.…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Christopher Delgado’s essay, “The Culture of Denial,” (2015), claims that mistrust in the scientific world is due to people’s beliefs, their ignorance and their personal agendas. Delgado demonstrates this with scientist discoveries, statistics, and explanations of people distrust in scientist conclusions, their religious beliefs and businesses apparent agendas. Delgado examines the mistrust, ignorance and the personal agendas of society in order to inform this culture to educate themselves and be open to new scientific findings. The intended audience for this essay is the general public, who is interested in the future of the scientific arena. I can relate to Christopher Delgado’s suggestion that this culture need to understand, educate,…

    • 300 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Elbow's Argument Analysis

    • 700 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In the traditional method of critical thinking, the goal is to find the right answer by discovering and ferreting out the wrong answers. Thus, in a multiple choice quiz, a student could determine that the correct answer was C by knowing that A, B, and D were incorrect. This student knows that, as Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” To me, this quote sums up the premise of what Elbow refers to as the doubting game. Once all untrue assertions have been eliminated, what remains is presumed true.…

    • 700 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We as humans tend to have the belief that our opinions are based on conclusions that resulted from completely rational, objective reasoning. We think that we have considered all evidence equally before arriving at a conclusion, and if we were to be presented with enough evidence opposing it, we would be quick to correct ourselves. However, people have again and again proved that this is not how we form our opinions. In reality, we have the tendency to ignore information that challenges our established beliefs, choosing to pay a disproportionate amount of our attention to information that confirms our beliefs.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sense Certainty Analysis

    • 1653 Words
    • 7 Pages

    What does sense-certainty fail in achieving, and what does this failure mean for epistemology? 2000. December 9th. Sense-certainty is Hegel 's approach to proving that knowledge of the world is not a wholly passive process, he does this through a dialectic from, meaning that the argument moves as a conversation, with hegel presenting an answer to a question, in this case how one can know about the world through consciousness, and then works to show how the answer is wrong in itself, because it holds inconsistencies. This essay will be read as in two parts, first i shall discuss how sense-certainty fails, and then will approach the question of what that means for epistemology.…

    • 1653 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Justifying belief and what is knowledge’s nature and scope is well defined by the philosophical stance of “naturalized epistemology” in that knowledge comes from the empirical sciences though it’s application of theory, methods and results. Knowledge comes from proving things. This is different from the classical foundationalism which asserts the need to basic belief from which other beliefs can be built on. This essay will discuss the distinctiveness of naturalized epistemology, then how it differs from classical foundationalism and conclude with why it is referable. It should be noted that both systems of knowledge have many variations and so this short essay is more a general discussion.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Before introducing his suggestions, Postman tackles the question of why skepticism isn’t already taught in schools. He notes the importance of skepticism in the 18th century, calling it “the principal mindset associated with the Enlightenment” (159). So, why didn’t something…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Charlotte Kang PHIL 110 Paper 1 Option 2: Foundationalist response to infinite regress argument for scepticism Sceptical arguments are designed to show that we lack any knowledge whatsoever. Such arguments have informed views about what knowledge is and whether we have any in the first place, by establishing the conditions that any acceptable knowledge claim must meet. This essay addresses the idea of radical, or global scepticism: that every statement is doubtful, and that information and theories are never certain or justified. Thus, claims for truth and knowledge about the real world depends on the defeat of scepticism. This essay discusses a particular argument for global scepticism – the infinite regress argument.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Evidentialism is believing that it immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. Non-evidentialism allows for more personal evidence to justify one’s belief. When contrasting the two views my personally beliefs align more with non-evidentialism. Contrasting both evidentialism and non-evidentialism only further affirms my aggreeance with the non-evidentialism.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Plato's Apology Argument

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Every human being has the ability to decide what they believe and what they do not. At a very early age, we develop judgement that allows us to choose whether or not to accept certain claims. These assertions may be tempting, but our reasoning allows us to critically analyze the information with respect to all of our previous knowledge. These claims may be faith based, fact-based, or opinion. Without recognizing it, we take every bit of information we gather, analyze it, and decide whether we accept its validity.…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout history, philosophers have been known to use skepticism as a method to justify their theories of existence and knowledge. Such philosophers like Descartes who wrote in his meditations that by doubting everything one is able to establish a foundation based upon certainty. However, others philosophers like G.E Moore and Barry Stroud reject Descartes and continue on to explain their foundations and ideas on the connection between knowledge and existence. Certainty and The Problem of the External World are both works that focus on the notion of how knowledge does not need to be justified through skepticism in order to be proven certain.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    As time passes, knowledge becomes more complex and philosophers start to develop different theories regarding how people come about this knowledge. There is a distinct difference between both Rationalism and Empiricism and both Descartes and Locke have found ways to discredit and support both views. Descartes argument towards Rationalism is much stronger than Hume's argument towards Empiricism. There is quite the distinction between both empiricism and rationalism. The major difference between rationalism and empiricism concerns their knowledge basis.…

    • 1317 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays