In this paper, I will be discussing the popular deceiver argument, and Jonathan Vogel’s response to it. In his article, Vogel describes the deceiver argument and talks the reader through what it is and what it is trying to explain. After he does this, Vogel then goes on to reject the deceiver argument, claiming that premise two of the argument is false. The responses that have been put forth are then discussed by Vogel, most likely trying to come up with a response he deems worthy of being the best response to the deceiver argument. After Vogel finds his response of choice, he goes on to briefly explain it. In his article about the deceiver argument and the many responses put forth to reject it, Jonathan Vogel fails in convincing his readers
…show more content…
The deceiver argument has three parts: Premise one says that “your sensory experiences could come through ordinary perception, so that most of what you believe about the world is true. But Your sensory experiences could also be caused deceptively, so that what you believe about the world is entirely false” (Vogel, 2015, p. 328). Premise two says that “you have no reason at all to believe that your sensory experiences arise in one way rather than the other” (Vogel, 2015, p. 329). The conclusion the deceiver argument comes to after premise one and two is that because of premise one and two, “you have no knowledge of the world around you” (Vogel, 2015, p. …show more content…
This response is called the Moorean response. It says that sensory experiences have distinct characteristics. Therefore, you are able to conclude that you having a specific sensory experience justifies the fact that you believe something is happening. For example, say you are at a wildlife reserve in China and see a giant panda. The Moorean response says that because you see the giant panda, you have justification for believing that the giant panda is in front of you. This also means that you have a reason to believe that you are not being deceived by a computer. Vogel finds this response unsatisfactory and turns to look at another response called
The deceiver argument has three parts: Premise one says that “your sensory experiences could come through ordinary perception, so that most of what you believe about the world is true. But Your sensory experiences could also be caused deceptively, so that what you believe about the world is entirely false” (Vogel, 2015, p. 328). Premise two says that “you have no reason at all to believe that your sensory experiences arise in one way rather than the other” (Vogel, 2015, p. 329). The conclusion the deceiver argument comes to after premise one and two is that because of premise one and two, “you have no knowledge of the world around you” (Vogel, 2015, p. …show more content…
This response is called the Moorean response. It says that sensory experiences have distinct characteristics. Therefore, you are able to conclude that you having a specific sensory experience justifies the fact that you believe something is happening. For example, say you are at a wildlife reserve in China and see a giant panda. The Moorean response says that because you see the giant panda, you have justification for believing that the giant panda is in front of you. This also means that you have a reason to believe that you are not being deceived by a computer. Vogel finds this response unsatisfactory and turns to look at another response called