Hospers argues against radical skeptic’s view that there is no certain knowledge for everything through the provision of vital grounds through which knowledge can be ultimately attained. According to the skeptics, there is not enough evidence though which the future can be predicted or the truth is proven. Differentiating between what one knows and does or cannot know is necessary. Equally, an excellent reason to believe is not enough reason to believe. This essay explicates Hospers’ perception through a summary analysis of his argument against skepticism and why this study favors Hospers over the skeptics Pollock, Nagel, and Descartes.
Hospers’ strongest argument is that “we can only have relative certainty of truth.” Based on this argument, absolute certainty can only be guaranteed through sufficient evidence drawn from our own past experiences through which an argument can be proven to be true. The three standards on the application of the word “know” are: knowing a person, knowhow as to how something is done, and the knowledge that something is the way it is. It is through these standards that Hospers derives the three essential components to proportional knowledge namely: truth, belief, and evidence. Based on these elements, Hospers holds that, knowledge requires evidence above truth and belief. The question is whether evidence can ever be adequate if it is not fully complete 100%. The argument by Hospers is that, finding certain truth requires different amounts of evidence as there exist different levels of knowledge. The truth requirement is necessary for if it is not, would be self-contradictory since knowledge cannot come from something false.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Through the adoption of the two different senses of knowing; strong and weak senses, Hospers builds his argument through prove of a doubter’s incoherence. To know, something must then be true, an individual must then believe in that thing, and believing that something is true must be based on sufficient evidence. While skeptics may argue that believing that something is true, one may not be in a position to know it and there exist the possibility that it can be just a lucky guess. It is for this reason that Hospers hold that believing something is true must be based on evidence. The focal point of the skepticism dilemma is born out of the evidence requirement; "How much evidence must there be? ...when could the accumulation of evidence end?" (Hospers). The weak sense of know addresses this dilemma. The strong sense know according to Hospers requires conclusive evidence from which truth is then guaranteed.
Philosophical skepticism is intriguing despite the obvious implausibility. Some arguments for philosophical skepticism target knowledge directly and as a result fail to offer any form of justification. The different perceptions and inconsistencies of skepticism especially by Descartes constantly vary rising the question as to what is the correct view and for this reason, this study argues in favor of Hospers over the skeptics. The cumbersome nature of the human language is one that skepticism cannot avoid. The brain is to only tool available to humans through which one can investigate the nature of existence, the result is coherent thoughts in lingual form. In addition, trustworthy conclusions can only be arrived at through the brains observations and calculations. Skeptics would be forced to call into question the reliability of Hospers’ argument in his refutations of absolute truth and attainment of knowledge. The is an obvious possibility of error in knowing but it is not enough reason to believe that the future cannot be predicted. However, we must have strong grounds as the basis for our prediction and that they be true.
