Philosopher Michael Huemer debates skepticism, knowledge, and certainty, discussing brain in a vat scenarios, direct realism, and semantic issues. They explore extremism in political discourse, biases, and the impact of expert consensus. The podcast also explores academic influence in controversial topics, misconceptions about global warming, moral realism, and media misinformation.
The debate book 'Can We Know Anything? A Debate' scrutinizes skepticism on certainties and justifications in knowledge claims.
Skepticism challenges the basis of knowledge by questioning certainty and justification, leading to a reevaluation of epistemological criteria.
The podcast discusses debunking progressive myths, the impact of unreliable science journalism, and the importance of scrutinizing expert consensus.
Deep dives
Debate Book on Philosophical Skepticism: Defending Knowledge vs. Defending Skepticism
The podcast episode discusses a debate book titled 'Can We Know Anything? A Debate,' co -authored by philosopher Mike Humor and Brian Francis. The debate centers on philosophical skepticism, distinguishing between defending skepticism and defending knowledge. The book critically examines various forms of skepticism, including external world skepticism and controversy skepticism, addressing whether one can truly know external world beliefs.
Certainty Skepticism vs. Justification Skepticism
The conversation delves into different forms of skepticism, highlighting the distinction between certainty skepticism and justification skepticism. It elaborates on how certainty skeptics question knowledge due to a lack of absolute certainty, while justification skeptics focus on whether beliefs are justified with sufficient reasoning, delving into the complexities of ruling out alternative scenarios.
Exploring the Nature of Knowledge: Implications of Skepticism
The episode explores the implications of skepticism on the nature of knowledge. It delves into the challenge of ruling out alternative scenarios in beliefs about the external world, such as the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis. The discussion sheds light on how skeptical arguments reveal inconsistencies in our conception of knowledge, aiming to clarify the criteria for evidence and justification in epistemology.
Challenging Popular Progressive Myths: Scientific Misconceptions and Ideology
Further, the podcast hints at an upcoming book on progressive political myths, highlighting factual beliefs that align with progressive ideology but are factually inaccurate. It contrasts left-wing myths often backed by misleading statistics or claims appearing as scientific truths with right-wing misinformation that tends to be more blatantly false. The episode underscores the need to debunk prevalent progressive myths that mislead based on faulty or misunderstood data.
Information Reliability and Controversy Skepticism: Expert Consensus Challenges
Moreover, the discussion touches on the challenges of identifying relevant experts and understanding expert consensus, particularly in issues like climate change and transgenderism. It underscores the impact of unreliable science journalism and societal complexities on forming informed opinions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing widely accepted beliefs and expert consensus in the face of misinformation and ideological biases.