Anti-Skeptical Argument Of The Brain In A Vat

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