G.E. Moore’s Hands

[Philosophy Now]

Roger Caldwell takes a sceptical look at scepticism.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/126/GE_Moores_Hands

[jayjacobus]

Skeptics seem to enjoy being skeptics. Often they don't have facts to back up their skepticism but they use improbable hypotheses as if they are fact.

The skeptic separates himself from the mainstream and that is part of his intent; to be different.

Even though I think I am part of the mainstream, I am a skeptic with regard to space-time. But this is not because I am a natural skeptic but because space-time is screwy. I have a hard time seeing how smart people are fooled.

[-1-]

Interesting read, the article was. How many people thought the same thing over the ages. Except for Heidungwissenkund. Or Heidelberg, or Heisemann. Can never remember those long, German names. The article seems to give the impression that it was Heidenberger alone who had any original thoughts since the Ancient Greeks.

I compare the typical skeptic to the conspiracy theorist. Both are credible, but they have to fight for acceptance of their theories, and they hardly ever get it, if ever.

[A_Seagull]

From Wikipedia: "scepticism (British English) is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.[1][2] It is often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality (moral skepticism), religion (skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of knowledge, or of certainty)."

If a philosopher does not start with a questioning attitude and doubt... ie as a sceptic by the above definition.... they are never going to achieve anything in philosophy.