Why We’re NOT Living in a Simulation

Summary

Ce script explore les défis du scepticisme, notamment l'hypothèse de la simulation, et présente des arguments philosophiques contre cette idée. Il examine les théories de Moore, le contextualisme et l'argument de Putnam sur les 'cerveaux dans des vases', pour montrer que les croyances sceptiques sont souvent limitées et ne remettent pas en question notre connaissance quotidienne du monde.

Takeaways

• 🧐 Le scepticisme questionne la validité de toutes nos croyances, y compris la possibilité d'une réalité simulée.
• 🤔 L'hypothèse de la simulation soulève la question de la connaissance et de la réalité, et si nous pouvons vraiment connaître quelque chose.
• 😵 Le philosophe René Descartes a exploré l'idée d'un 'démon malin' qui pourrait nous induire en erreur sur l'existence de tout ce que nous croyons savoir.
• 📚 L'argument de G.E. Moore soutient que la connaissance directe de notre existence physique, comme avoir des mains, est plus solide que tout scénario sceptique.
• 🕵️‍♂️ L'approche contextuelle du savoir, telle que défendue par David Lewis, soutient que ce qui compte comme 'savoir' dépend du contexte dans lequel la déclaration est faite.
• 🧐 L'argument de Putnam contre le scepticisme utilise une théorie de la langue qui nécessite un lien causal entre les mots et les objets qu'ils désignent.
• 💡 L'idée que nous ne pouvons pas être dans un scénario sceptique sans pouvoir le référencer dans une langue qui n'est pas celle de la simulation est un point clé de l'argument de Putnam.
• 🤷‍♂️ Le scepticisme peut être vu comme un exercice intellectuel plutôt qu'une croyance sérieuse qui affecte notre façon de vivre et de prendre des décisions.
• 📉 L'argument de Putnam suggère que les définitions de la vérité et de la référence de nos déclarations sont indépendantes de la possibilité d'une simulation.
• 🤔 Les arguments anti-sceptiques abordés dans le script soulignent la complexité de la connaissance et de la réalité, et la difficulté de douter de tout ce que nous croyons savoir.
• 🎯 Le script invite à une réflexion plus approfondie sur la nature de la connaissance et les limites de la raison, en s'appuyant sur des arguments philosophiques classiques.

Q & A

Qu'est-ce que l'argument de l'hypothèse de la simulation et en quoi consiste le problème philosophique qu'elle soulève?

L'hypothèse de la simulation est une idée selon laquelle notre réalité pourrait être une illusion, simulée par une intelligence supérieure. Elle soulève le problème philosophique de la connaissance et de la réalité, questionnant jusqu'à quel point nous pouvons être certains de la vérité de ce que nous percevons.

Quel est l'argument de René Descartes sur le 'mauvais démon' et comment cela se rapporte au scepticisme?

L'argument du 'mauvais démon' de Descartes soutient que nous sommes potentiellement trompés par un démon qui nous fait croire que tout ce que nous croyons est faux. Cela se rapporte au scepticisme en ce que cela suggère que nous ne pouvons être certains de rien, y compris de notre propre existence.

Quel est l'argument de G.E. Moore contre le scepticisme et comment fonctionne-t-il?

L'argument de Moore contre le scepticisme est basé sur la justification relative des croyances. Il soutient que nos croyances ordinaires, comme celle de l'existence de nos mains, sont plus justifiées que la possibilité d'un scénario sceptique, comme être dans une simulation.

Comment le contextualisme de David Lewis aborde-t-il le problème du scepticisme?

Le contextualisme soutient que ce que nous considérons comme étant 'connu' dépend du contexte. Ainsi, les défis sceptiques, bien qu'abstraits, sont souvent inappropriés dans la plupart des contextes de la vie quotidienne et de la plupart des pratiques scientifiques.

Quelle est la différence entre le scepticisme externe et le scepticisme total?

Le scepticisme externe remet en question notre connaissance de la réalité extérieure, tandis que le scepticisme total remet en question notre connaissance de tout, y compris nos états internes et notre propre existence.

Quel est l'argument de Hilary Putnam sur les 'cerveaux dans des bacs' et comment il est-il utilisé pour contrer le scepticisme?

Putnam utilise l'argument des 'cerveaux dans des bacs' pour soutenir qu'il n'y a pas de causalité nécessaire entre les mots et les objets qu'ils désignent. Il soutient que même si nous étions dans une simulation, nos croyances ne seraient pas fausses car elles seraient évaluées selon les normes de référence de cette simulation.

Comment l'argument de Moore est-il considéré comme une réponse pragmatique au scepticisme?

L'argument de Moore est pragmatique car il soutient que nous ne pouvons pas douter de l'existence de nos mains de manière significative, car cela affecterait notre façon de nous comporter et d'interagir avec le monde. Ainsi, la connaissance de l'existence de nos mains est plus forte que la possibilité d'un scénario sceptique.

Quels sont les arguments mathématiques qui soutiennent que nous sommes probablement dans une simulation?

Certaines personnes utilisent des arguments mathématiques pour soutenir que la probabilité de vivre dans une simulation est élevée, en se basant sur l'idée que si les civilisations technologiques atteignent un certain stade, elles pourraient simuler des réalités alternatives, augmentant ainsi les chances que nous en soyons une.

Quelle est la différence entre le scepticisme ancien et le scepticisme moderne?

Le scepticisme ancien, souvent incarné par les philosophes grecs, visait à encourager à suspendre le jugement et à vivre avec l'incertitude. Le scepticisme moderne, en revanche, explore davantage les implications de la possibilité d'être trompés dans nos connaissances et perceptions.

Quels sont les arguments contre l'argument de Moore selon lesquels la connaissance de l'existence de nos mains est plus forte que celle d'un scénario sceptique?

Certains critiques soutiennent que l'argument de Moore ignore la théorie de la connaissance de base, où les faits spécifiques sont justifiés par des principes plus larges. Ainsi, remettre en question une méthode globale de connaissance remettrait en question tous les faits spécifiques acquis par cette méthode.

Quelle est la position du réalisme direct selon laquelle nous ne pouvons pas être dans un scénario sceptique?

Le réalisme direct soutient que nous ne pouvons pas être dans un scénario sceptique car nos définitions de la vérité et de la référence de nos déclarations sont séparées de la réalité même si nous étions dans une simulation. Ce point de vue soutient que nos croyances et nos connaissances sont valides dans le contexte de notre réalité actuelle.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Le défi sceptique et l'hypothèse de la simulation

Le paragraphe introduit le spectre du scepticisme en se demandant si tout ce que nous croyons savoir est en réalité faux, comme dans l'hypothèse d'une réalité simulée où nos perceptions sont contrôlées par un ordinateur. Il évoque l'idée que les philosophes ont débattu de la possibilité d'une telle simulation, et bien qu'elle soit troublante, de nombreux arguments philosophiques existent pour soutenir que nous ne sommes pas dans une simulation, ou que même si nous l'étions, cela n'aurait pas les conséquences désastreuses souvent associées. L'objectif est d'explorer ces arguments et de montrer que le scepticisme est plus complexe qu'il n'y paraît.

05:02

👐 Réponse à l'argument du scepticisme par G.E. Moore

Ce paragraphe présente une réfutation du scepticisme par l'anglais G.E. Moore, qui soutient que nous avons des preuves constantes de l'existence de notre monde extérieur, comme la connaissance préalable de nos mains. Moore utilise un argument modus tollens pour montrer que, même si nous ne savons pas que nous ne sommes pas dans un scénario sceptique, nous savons que le monde extérieur existe. Il soutient que la preuve de l'existence de nos mains est plus solide que celle de la possibilité d'un scénario sceptique, et que notre croyance en la réalité de nos mains est plus justifiée que celle d'un doute sceptique.

10:04

🔍 Le contextualisme face au scepticisme

Le contextualisme est introduit comme une réponse au scepticisme, où la connaissance est vue comme étant relative au contexte dans lequel elle est affirmée. Selon les contextualistes comme David Lewis, ce que nous considérons comme connu peut varier en fonction du contexte. Cela signifie que les attentes de ce qui constitue la connaissance diffèrent d'un domaine à l'autre et que le scepticisme, en élargissant le champ des 'alternatives' à considérer, peut rendre la connaissance impossible. Le contextualisme permet de comprendre que la connaissance est un concept flexible et que le scepticisme n'est pas toujours pertinent dans nos évaluations de connaissance quotidiennes.

15:05

🧠 Le scénario du 'cerveau dans un bac' et l'argument de Putnam

Ce paragraphe explore l'argument de Putnam contre le scepticisme, utilisant le scénario hypothétique du 'cerveau dans un bac'. Putnam soutient que si nous étions effectivement des cerveaux dans des bacs, nos mots et concepts ne se référeraient qu'à des objets à l'intérieur de la simulation, et non à l'extérieur. Ainsi, nos croyances ne seraient pas rendues fausses par la simple existence d'une simulation. Putnam conclut que nous ne pouvons pas être dans un scénario sceptique de cette nature, car cela voudrait dire que nos définitions de vérité et de référence sont complètement séparées de la réalité, ce qui est logiquement impossible.

20:06

🕊️ L'intuition derrière les arguments anti-sceptiques

Dans ce dernier paragraphe, l'auteur conclut en soulignant l'intuition sous-jacente à tous les arguments anti-sceptiques présentés, à savoir que les implications du scepticisme sont limitées. Il mentionne que l'argument de Putnam ne tient que si nous ne pouvons pas sortir de la simulation, ce qui donnerait un espoir de découvrir la réalité. L'auteur invite les spectateurs à réfléchir sur la portée de ces arguments et à débattre de leur validité dans les commentaires, tout en reconnaissant que le scepticisme peut toujours être une position philosophique importante à considérer.

Keywords

💡Scepticisme

Le scepticisme est une position philosophique qui doute de la possibilité de connaître la réalité avec certitude. Dans la vidéo, le scepticisme est exploré à travers différentes hypothèses, comme celle de la simulation, où l'on peut remettre en question toute notre connaissance du monde externe. L'exemple de la matrice est utilisé pour illustrer ce concept.

💡Simulation

La simulation fait référence à l'hypothèse selon laquelle notre réalité pourrait être une illusion, simulée par une intelligence supérieure. Dans le script, cette idée est discutée comme un scénario sceptique extrême qui suggère que nos perceptions et sensations pourraient être des illusions.

💡Connaissance

La connaissance est définie comme la compréhension justifiée de la vérité ou de la réalité des choses. Le script examine si la connaissance est possible dans un scénario sceptique, où même nos croyances les plus intimes pourraient être fausses.

💡Mensonge universel

Le concept de mensonge universel est abordé dans le script comme la possibilité que toutes nos croyances soient incorrectes. Cela soulève des questions sur la nature même de la connaissance et de la réalité.

💡Doute

Le doute est présenté comme un outil utilisé par les sceptiques pour remettre en question nos croyances. Dans le script, le doute est utilisé pour explorer l'idée que nous pourrions être dans une situation où tout ce que nous croyons est faux.

💡Céphalée déconnectée

La céphalée déconnectée est un scénario hypothétique où une personne est privée de ses sens et de son corps, mais continue de penser qu'elle vit une réalité normale. Dans le script, ce concept est utilisé pour discuter de la possibilité que nos perceptions ne soient pas fiables.

💡Argument de Moore

L'argument de Moore est une réfutation du scepticisme qui soutient que nous savons certaines choses par défaut, comme l'existence de nos mains, ce qui ne peut être remis en question par des hypothèses sceptiques. Dans le script, cet argument est utilisé pour soutenir l'idée que nous avons des connaissances directes de la réalité.

💡Contextualisme

Le contextualisme est une théorie de la connaissance qui soutient que ce que nous considérons comme étant connu dépend du contexte. Dans le script, le contextualisme est utilisé pour expliquer comment les défis sceptiques peuvent être moins pertinents dans des contextes ordinaires de la vie.

💡Brain in a Vat

Le 'Brain in a Vat' est un scénario sceptique où une personne pense vivre une vie normale, mais en réalité, c'est juste son cerveau qui est dans un contenant, connecté à un ordinateur qui simule ses expériences. Dans le script, cet argument est utilisé pour discuter de la possibilité que notre réalité soit une illusion.

💡Inférence

L'inférence est le processus par lequel nous passons d'une idée ou d'une croyance à une autre. Dans le script, l'inférence est utilisée pour construire des arguments sceptiques, ainsi que pour les réfuter.

💡Causalité

La causalité fait référence à la relation de cause à effet entre les événements. Dans le script, l'idée de causalité est utilisée pour discuter de la façon dont les mots et les concepts sont liés aux objets et aux expériences réelles, ce qui est crucial pour la réfutation du scepticisme.

💡Référence

La référence est la relation entre un nom ou un terme et l'objet ou l'événement qu'il désigne. Dans le script, la question de la référence est abordée dans le contexte de l'argument de Putnam contre le scepticisme, où il soutient que nous ne pouvons pas parler de choses en dehors de notre expérience immédiate.

Highlights

Le scepticisme philosophique explore l'idée que toutes nos croyances peuvent être fausses, ce qui remet en question la possibilité de connaître quoi que ce soit.

L'argument de Moore soutient que nos croyances ordinaires, comme celle de l'existence de nos mains, sont plus justifiées que les hypothèses sceptiques.

Le scepticisme antique visait à libérer les individus du besoin de juger, en acceptant l'incapacité à prendre des décisions définitives.

Les scénarios sceptiques comme celui du 'cerveau dans une fût' questionnent la réalité de notre perception et de notre connaissance de l'extérieur.

L'argument de Putnam contre le scepticisme soutient qu'une langue doit être connectée causalement aux objets qu'elle désigne.

Si nous étions des cerveaux dans des fûts, nos concepts et nos mots ne se référeraient pas à l'extérieur du simulateur, mais à l'intérieur.

Le contextualisme en épistémologie soutient que ce que nous considérons comme connaissance dépend du contexte dans lequel la revendication est faite.

L'analyse de Putnam suggère que nous ne pouvons pas même formuler la notion d'être dans un scénario sceptique de manière cohérente.

L'argument de Putnam remet en question la possibilité de se trouver dans un scénario sceptique sans pouvoir le référencer dans notre langage.

Le scepticisme peut être vu comme un défi limité, qui n'affecte pas la majorité de nos croyances ou de nos actions quotidiennes.

L'idée que nous ne pouvons pas avoir de connaissance absolue est moins radicale que celle selon laquelle nous ne pouvons pas avoir de connaissance du tout.

La théorie de la connaissance de Moore soutient que nous avons des preuves constantes que nos mains existent, ce qui les rend plus justifiées que n'importe quelle hypothèse sceptique.

Le contextualisme propose que les seuils de connaissance varient selon les situations, ce qui peut expliquer notre incapacité à douter de certaines croyances.

L'argument de Putnam peut être interprété comme montrant que nous ne sommes pas dans un scénario sceptique, ou que nous ne pouvons pas y penser de manière cohérente.

Le scepticisme peut être vu comme un défi intellectuel qui, selon certains arguments, a un impact limité sur notre compréhension du monde et de la réalité.

L'idée que nous sommes tous vivant une vie simulée n'affecte pas notre capacité à référencer des objets réels dans notre langage quotidien.

L'argument de Putnam suggère que les définitions de vérité et de référence de nos déclarations sont indépendantes de la possibilité d'être dans une simulation.

Transcripts

if you seek truth it is necessary to

doubt all things at least once imagine

for a moment that everything you thought

you knew was completely wrong that the

world around you does not really exist

it is an illusion you are actually a

disembodied brain hooked up to a

computer that is simulating every one of

your perceptions and Sensations this is

the sort of philosophical problem that

gives people existential nightmares

famously dayart said that ideas like

this were completely intolerable the

notion that every single proposition

that you believe is actually false is

incredibly disturbing it raises the

horrifying possibility that we cannot

know anything perhaps knowledge itself

is an illusion and we are all

perpetually a drift in a pool of our own

ignorance maybe everyone is irreparably

living a lie however despite its

persistence and popularity many

philosophers have argued that we are

definitely not living in a simulation or

that even if we did this would not have

the disastrous effects often associated

with it and it is these arguments that

we will look at today get ready to learn

how you can do philosophy just by waving

your hands why the simulation hypothesis

might be impossible and so much more

first remember that this is not a

definitive or final Guide to the issue I

only covering a fraction of the

literature that is out there but I hope

to convince you by the end of this video

that skepticism is a bit more

complicated than it first appears but

with that out of the way let's get

started one a skeptic's guide to

skepticism in the 1999 sci-fi film The

Matrix the protagonist Neo discovers

that his entire life has been one big

delusion whereas he thought he was

working a classic office job and living

a relatively ordinary existence in '90s

America it turns out that he and every

other human in our world was actually in

a simulation and that the real world has

fallen to robot overlords Who harvest

our heat for energy in a way that turns

out to not be economical but hey hum

we're philosophers not pedants when

people talk about skeptical scenarios

they normally mean that we might be in

the position of Neo prior to waking up

all of our beliefs about the external

world might be false and we don't even

know it some skeptical scenarios go even

further than this in the case of

decart's evil demon we are deceived even

about our internal states with our sole

certainty being that we exist hence I

think therefore I am other proposed

skeptical scenarios include the idea

that we are a brain inat or in some

never-ending dream what these situations

have in common is that they express the

possibility either that all of our

beliefs are false or that all of our

beliefs about the external world are

false there are further arguments that

can be had about the likelihood of

different skeptical scenarios some

people have tried to make mathematical

arguments that it is not just possible

but probable that we are living in a

simulation with varying degrees of

plausibility but for this video I just

want to focus on this basic idea that

all of our beliefs about the world could

be false part of what makes a skeptical

scenario so philosophically compelling

is that it essentially extends something

that we all know to be true to its

logical extreme that we humans can make

mistakes in our perceptions and our

judgments most of us have misremembered

something or misheard someone or gone

through the embarrassing experience of

mistaking a total stranger for your

friend and jumping on their back as a

joke only to end up apologizing

profusely to a very kind Albanian man

the point is that everyone makes

mistakes and all a skeptic has to do is

say well you could have made a mistake

to every one of our beliefs each time we

will have to concede that it is possible

at which point the skeptic can clap his

hands and say fantastic well you could

be mistaken about everything then the

skeptical scenarios are partly just to

make this idea Vivid some ancient Greek

Skeptics did not rely on this idea and

instead took the one by one approach to

doubting everything that we thought we

knew and different philosophers have

very different AIMS in proposing

skeptical scenarios some have argued

they imply we have no real knowledge at

least about the external World others

have been more modest and said that it

means we don't have certain knowledge of

anything a lot of ancient Greek Skeptics

had a very different in mind they wanted

people to give up judgment entirely for

their own good and live in peace with

the idea that we could never really make

conclusive judgments about anything so

why worry ourselves about it however

it's important to recognize that these

are all very separate claims the idea

that we can have no certain knowledge is

much more minimal than the idea we

cannot have Knowledge full stop if you

take knowledge as a precursor to action

the second type of skeptic basically

paralyzes us whereas the first simply

reminds us that we should always be open

to the possibility that we are wrong

however certain we may feel so the

stakes of the debates vary wildly

between which skeptic you are talking to

for our purposes we shall Define the

skeptical challenge as the idea that all

of our beliefs could be false and that

as a result we have no knowledge we will

further subdivide this into the external

skeptical challenge the idea that we

cannot have knowledge about the external

world and the total skeptical challenge

the idea that we cannot have knowledge

about anything we will mainly focus on

the external skeptical challenge simply

because it is the most popular and it's

the one that people spend the most time

talking about but with that groundwork

laid let's Plunge in with our first

response to the skeptic and it's

something that most philosophers have

wanted to shout at the top of their

lungs at one point or another if you

want to see more videos like this then

please consider supporting me through my

patreon or my email list the links are

in the description two stuff obviously

exists I remember once having a

discussion about skeptical scenarios

with a group of my friends at school and

one of them said something that always

stuck with me in response to someone

claiming that the table in front of them

might not exist they said yeah but I

trust the table more than I trust you he

meant it as a tongue-and-cheek joke but

many years later I found a much more

sophisticated version of this very same

argument in the work of English

philosopher GE Moore according to Mo

when someone raises a skeptical scenario

they are essentially inferring from the

possibility of that scenario to the idea

that knowledge about the external world

might not exist this is a

straightforward modus ponin argument one

if we don't know that we are not in a

skeptical scenario then we don't know

that the external World exists two we

don't know that we're not in in a

skeptical scenario conclusion we don't

know that the external World exists

however for every modus ponent argument

there is a corresponding modus tolan's

argument and here more employs a

startlingly simple one the first premise

is the same but then the arguments begin

to diverge wildly again in propositional

form one if we don't know that we are

not in a skeptical scenario then we

don't know that the external World

exists two if I know that my hand exists

I know that the external World exists

three I know that my hand exists

conclusion one I know that the external

World exists conclusion two I know that

I'm not in a skeptical scenario take a

moment just to let that argument rest

because at first it can come across a

bit like a joke but there's actually

kind of something in this what more is

touching upon here is something I call

the relative justification of beliefs

for instance imagine that you find out

that two of your beliefs contradict one

another you cannot believe both at the

same time otherwise Rogue logicians will

come to your house and burn down your

shed so you are forced to abandon one of

your beliefs which one do you pick well

most of us would say that we pick

whichever belief we are most sure of or

is most justified if one belief has

incontrovertible evidence that it is the

case and the other is mere speculation

then it makes sense to hold on to the

evidenced belief Mo's contention is that

my belief that I have hands is much

stronger and much more Justified than

any belief that a skeptical scenario is

possible in some nebulous sense there

are two ways that you can pitch this

argument you can either say that your

belief that your hands exist is

genuinely more Justified than your

belief in the possibility of some

skeptical scenario or you can say that

on a pragmatic level you are simply

stuck with the belief that your hands

exist and by extension you are also

stuck with the idea that the external

World exists the epistemological version

of this argument is closer to the one

more presents he says that we have

constant reaffirming evidence that our

hands exist every time they drift into

view I see that they exist every time I

pick something up I gain another piece

of evidence that they exist with every

hug or hold or handshake I accumulate

ever more justification that my hands

are real by contrast what is my evidence

that I might be living in a skeptical

scenario the words of a few people in a

seminar Hall and some notion of

possibility that philosophers spend ages

arguing about anyway now it might be

that these arguments are really

persuasive and the idea of possibility

at play is genuinely robust and reliable

but the question is do I have more

evidence for the possibility of the

skeptical scenario than I do that my

hands exist Moore says the answer is no

and his point is definitely worth

considering even even if there are

criticisms we can make of it for

instance you might be what some call a

foundationalist about epistemology that

is you might think a properly

constructed theory of knowledge must

justify specific facts on wider

principles so you can justify that the

sky is blue based on the reliability of

inductive reasoning but you cannot quell

any doubts about inductive reasoning

based on the fact that the sky is blue

similarly if you throw into doubt an

overall method of gaining knowledge you

simultaneously throw into doubt all of

the specific pieces of knowledge

acquired by that method many famous

philosophers thought in this way

including dayut and if you share their

view then Mo's argument will seem

understandably quite fishy however there

is another angle we can take we could

first say that we are beholden to keep

our set of beliefs consistent so we must

reject either the possibility of a

skeptical scenario or the knowledge

about our hands we can then argue that

even if you try to doubt the existence

of your hands you will ultimately

probably fail to do so I may say that

I'm not sure that my hands exist but

this implies certain things it means

that I would have hesitation when I go

to type at my computer or when I go to

pick something up or when I go and give

someone a hug I might feel gentle

surprise when my hands drift into Vision

but in practice none of these things

happen even for avowed Skeptics likewise

I can say that I doubt the existence of

an external world but I certainly don't

act like it in fact it's an open

question what acting like you doubted

the existence of the world would even

look like would it entail a sort of

apathy proportional to How likely I

think the non-existence of the world is

if I think I may live in a Sim ation

does that require that I treat my loved

ones as if they're computer programs the

point here is that it is sort of unclear

what a belief in a skeptical possibility

amounts to or how it would manifest in

our Behavior whereas it seems

essentially impossible to doubt the

existence of my hands to any meaningful

extent Beyond simply stating that I do

so from a pragmatic perspective it makes

a certain sense to say that we

involuntarily have a belief in our hands

and thus if we are presented with a

choice between accepting the possibility

of a skeptical scenario and the

knowledge that our hands EX exist we

have already rejected skepticism and

embraced hology of course there are many

criticisms you can make of Mo's argument

in either of these forms perhaps most

obviously you could question the idea

that you knowing your hands exist has

anything to do with the sense of

knowledge that a skeptic uses in fact

the next view we will consider does just

this three the contextualist imagine you

and I are having a conversation about a

mutual friend Jennifer she has told you

that on weekends her mother goes to the

bottom of her garden and eats bees that

is she grabs the insects puts them in

her mouth chews and swallows you

casually say did you hear Jennifer's mom

eats bees I am understandably not going

to take this at face value and I say do

you really know that Jennifer's mom eats

bees to which you reply of course

Jennifer told me but then I say yeah but

do you really know that Jennifer's mom

eats bees in response to this second

question you might go on second thoughts

I don't know that Jennifer's mom does

that Jennifer could have been lying or

she could have been mistaken here it

seems my repeated questioning has

changed your self assessment of your

position from the idea that you know

Jennifer's mom has these bizarre Apen

eating habits to conceding that you

don't know after all despite nothing

about the evidence having changed to

explain this phenomenon some

philosophers have proposed an analysis

of knowledge called contextualism

according to contextualists like David

Lewis whether we know something or not

is partly a matter of the context in

which we make the knowledge claim for

instance whereas imp pure mathematics we

might only say that we know something

when it has been proven in other fields

like biology we might say we know

something if the evidence very strongly

suggests it's true while still

acknowledging that some great discovery

tomorrow morning could blow our best

theories out of the water essentially

the contextualist views someone claiming

they know something as them saying I

have ruled out all the relative

alternatives to this being true but then

what counts as a relevant alternative is

context dependent this sounds very

abstract at first but we see it a lot in

our everyday speech for instance if if I

were to walk into a human biology lab

and claim that they did not really know

that all men are mortal because not

everyone has died yet I would get a lot

of strange looks from people in lab

coats and the field of biology would

emerge completely unscathed the

possibility that I am Immortal is simply

not relevant in this context but it is

immediately clear this can help us in

our fight against the skeptical scenario

when the skeptic tells us we cannot know

anything because we cannot know we are

not in a simulation they seem to be

using two very different definitions of

the word no on the one hand we have the

kinds of knowledge that are contextually

appropriate for our everyday actions and

even 99% of philosophy but on the other

we have a kind of knowledge that is

really only in use when we are dealing

directly with skepticism as a

philosophical issue this really takes

the sting out of the skeptical challenge

as I said in the last section the thing

that makes a skeptical scenario

philosophically distressing is the idea

that we can doubt all our beliefs just

in the same way that we can doubt that

we have heard someone correctly or that

we can doubt all of our research is

correct but for the textualist the

skeptical challenge is doing something

very different the situation they are

raising is so often completely

irrelevant to what we mean when we say

that someone knows something that in

almost every case it is an idol concern

and it certainly does not preclude

almost every type of knowledge this

reflects an intuition that a lot of

people have when someone raises the idea

that we are all living in a simulation

or being tricked by an evil demon namely

why does this matter and while this

might at first just seem like

anti-intellectualism the contextualist

really lends Ence to their view just

like my challenge to the biology lab the

skeptic is raising a concern that is so

outside the scope of our everyday

knowledge evaluations that it fails to

actively wound them we can look at the

skeptic and say yeah sure you're right

in a

sense but it's

not it's not really relevant is it this

touches on a similar point to the one I

was making earlier about struggling to

disbelieve in the existence of your

hands the skeptical scenario does not

seem to touch the justification for

believing in our hands because the

standards for us knowing that our hands

exist is very different to the kind of

absolute certainty the skeptic demands

of us sure the skeptic could respond to

this by saying that knowledge is not

contextual at all but is absolute and

implies total certainty that is in order

for us to know something we must believe

it to be true infallibly there is

certainly nothing wrong with the skeptic

doing this but it is a marked departure

from how we use the word no in our

everyday language and how we use it as a

basis for our actions in practice we do

not wait for infallibility before

ascribing knowledge or acting as if

something is true it just has to pass a

reasonable threshold for doubt and if

the contextualist is right then this

threshold might be very different in

different situations we might even have

a go at measuring these thresholds using

a methodology Frank Ramsey outlines in

his fantastic paper truth and

probability which he intended to measure

the strengths of beliefs but we can

repurpose it here imagine that I had to

stake something valuable on the claim

that a given statement was true and if

it turned out to be false then I lost

whatever valuable thing I wagered we

might estimate the thresholds for

knowledge in different situations on the

basis of how much value I'm willing to

bet on a proposition being true if based

on the evidence we are unwilling to bet

very much at all then we probably don't

know it in many contexts perhaps we

would only make knowledge claims in the

very loosest of situations like when

we're down the pub with some friends

however if we were justified in betting

our house then we probably do know this

proposition in a great number of

contexts even if it fall short of

absolute certainty we can then say that

the skeptic points out there are limits

to the extent we should bet on any

proposition since the possibility of a

skeptical scenario however remote means

they might all turn out to be false I'm

not saying this measuring system is

perfect it certainly wasn't designed

with this in mind but I hope it gives

you an intuitive feel for what

skepticism looks like on a contextualist

worldview it is still a legitimate

concern in some contexts but those

contexts are very limited and so we can

free ourselves of the constant need to

be beating back decart's demon resting

assured that in most scenarios the

skeptical challenge simply doesn't

matter but finally I want to move on to

what I think is one of the most

interesting arguments against skepticism

out there it is incredibly

philosophically and logically

sophisticated and even if you don't

think it's right it is undeniably cool

at least as far as any philosophical

argument can be considered cool you

might think that's a contradiction in

terms four brains in Vats and brains in

Vats a classic skeptical scenario people

often turn to is the idea of a brain in

a vat this is a very similar scenario to

the one depicted in The Matrix everyone

is not in fact living in the real world

but is instead plugged into a machine

simulating an experience for them with

no basis in external reality however

this particular thought experiment was

not originally put forward by a skeptic

but by the philosopher Hillary putam and

he used it in an anti- skeptical

argument that still has me scratching my

head years after I first read it in its

original form it is quite technical so

I'm going to scrub off some of its

complexity and instead keep only what is

needed to get most of the argument if

you are familiar with the original paper

I apologize in advance partner entire

Point rests on a certain theory about

language that a language must have some

form of causal connection with the

objects it refers to so if no one had

ever seen heard or encountered an

elephant then there would be no way to

refer to elephants in our language this

makes a certain amount of intuitive

sense after all with no causal story

about how a given object came to be

named by a certain word it seems

mysterious how the word would then refer

back to that object and even things that

at first look like exceptions to this

rule such as imaginary creatures do not

by their very nature refer to anything

out in the world so this is the first

idea that forms Pam's argument in order

to refer to something by means of our

language there must be a causal chain

linking that thing back to the word in

our language that refers to it secondly

he points out that if we were So-Cal

brains in Vats then we would be speaking

some form of vat language that is all of

our words and Concepts would not refer

to things outside the simulation that we

are a part of but things within the

simulation itself for instance in that

world my word hands does not refer to

hands outside of the simulation but

instead hands inside the simulation that

is when I speak the sentence I have two

hands inside the simulation I would be

totally correct additionally if I were

to say I am a brain and a vat that

statement would strictly speaking be

false because my word brain would not

pick out the brain outside of the

simulation but instead the brains inside

the simulation likewise for my word vat

and since using these reference it is

false that I am a brain and a vat my

statement would be incorrect even within

this context of a skeptical scenario

arguably all of the normal epistemic

ideas like knowledge verification truth

evidence Etc would all be defined in vat

language so the statements of the vat

people would be evaluable by those

standards not by the standards of the

world outside the Vats if you are

familiar with the disquotational theory

of Truth you can also put it in those

terms that's what putam does but I'm not

going to go into it here putam then asks

us to consider our world he points out

that just as the the simulation people

in our thought experiments could not

refer to things outside of their

simulation and so their beliefs weren't

actually rendered false by the fact they

were in a simulation so too we cannot be

in a skeptical scenario such that it

renders all of our beliefs incorrect In

fact we cannot even formulate the idea

that we are in a skeptical scenario in a

way that makes this possible in order to

do this we would need to be speaking the

language of people outside the

simulation and we cannot do that so

putam concludes that we cannot be in a

simulation by any meaning of the word

simulation that we can make sense of and

we cannot construct a New Concept that

truly encompasses the idea of a

skeptical scenario since if we were in

one we would by definition be causally

cut off from the world outside of the

supposed simulation you may want to go

through this argument a few times just

to check all the moving Parts I know

that I had to there are various

different conclusions people have tried

to draw from putnam's argument some have

argued that once we accept it it shows

that we genuinely are not in a skeptical

scenario whereas others have instead

taken it to mean that if we are in a

so-called skeptical scenario we cannot

talk about it or even think about it

coherently others have claimed that what

we really mean by a skeptical scenario

is that there might be a language within

which ours could be embedded which has

different truth standards but ones that

we would want to adopt if we ever came

across that language and then there is a

further debate around whether this

thought itself is intelligible I

obviously cannot go through all of these

possibilities here so I will leave you

guys to battle it out in the comments

what do you think we can logically take

from putnam's argument and to what

extent do you think it refus Ute aspects

of the skeptical challenge but whatever

its appropriate scope I think that

putnam's argument again gives a

logically sophisticated voice to this

underlying intuition that there is

something off about the skeptical

challenge expressed through his idea

that whether or not there is some sense

in which we might be in a simulation our

own definitions of truth and the

reference of our own statements are

entirely separate from that even if I am

in The Matrix when I say I have two

hands I am right because I'm not talking

about metaphysically mysterious hands

that may or may not exist in some higher

plane I've never visited I'm referring

to these hands right here and by the

standards of reference and existence

within this reality they bloody well

exist I've chosen to talk about these

three antis skeptical arguments as

opposed to the hundreds of others out

there because I think they best Express

this intuition I've been talking about

that whatever the consequences of the

skeptical possibility are they are

severely limited I also want to point

out that putnam's argument only works as

originally intended if you also

stipulate that nobody's going to wake up

up from the simulation because at that

point you would have a language in which

talking about the simulation would be

perfectly sensible but of course just

like in The Matrix if we could wake up

from the simulation that would give us

hope because it would present a

possibility where we can learn about the

actual world so that too takes a lot of

the bite out of the skeptical scenario

of course perhaps none of these

arguments hold the slightest bit of

water and an evil demon is fooling

people into believing that they do I

guess we'll never

know or will we I hope you enjoyed this

video I've been doing a lot on sort of

heavy topics at the moment and this was

a really nice change of pace it's just a

bit more light-hearted and if you want

more on this sort of analytic philosophy

and find distinctions between Concepts

then click here to watch me examine the

recent book by Robert sapolsky which

claims to show we have no Free Will and

furthermore that moral responsibility

does not exist and stick around for more

on thinking to improve your life