There are many people who claim that it is impossible to objectively know anything about reality. The sole objective of this post is to demonstrate that the claim that it is impossible for anyone to perceive anything objectively is self-refuting; there is much more to say about other particular manifestations of skepticism, but its other forms are not self-refuting the way this claim is. This assertion is different from anti-realism (which denies there is any truth to discover) and much closer, if not identical to, total skepticism (which teaches that we are epistemologically unable to confirm or deny most or all statements because we do not have adequate knowledge). It simply posits that due to the subjectivity of our experiences OR the desire to believe what we wish to be true we cannot maintain an objective and rational understanding of reality.
This claim is asinine and self-refuting. Its commonality does not make it true.
I have heard Christians, relativists, and ignorant people from many ideological backgrounds and creeds agree with this belief. But those who hold to this are immersed in blatant inconsistency, for the moment they open their mouths to affirm this view they have already contradicted their own position at the most foundational level. If someone declares that no one is capable of objectively recognizing or understanding truth, he or she claims to be objectively recognizing that the truth about reality is that people are unable to objectively recognize truth. See the immediate incoherency? This resembles the claim total skeptics offer that we cannot know anything or that we cannot know anything for sure. If we cannot know anything, how does the one proclaiming such an idea know that fact? If we cannot know anything for sure, how would we know for sure that the statement "we cannot know anything for sure" is correct*?
There are a variety of concepts which can be verified or refuted entirely objectively. The existence of truth is one thing that can be irrefutably verified. If someone claims there is no such thing as truth (anti-realism), they are teaching that it is true that there is no truth. The fact that truth exists is one of several self-evident truths (which I call axioms). When I call them self-evident, I do not mean that they merely strike me as subjectively obvious to me as an individual; instead, I mean that anyone who denies them is in contradiction. Noting the self-verifying or self-refuting nature of certain propositions or ideas is extremely helpful in verifying or falsifying many claims. For instance, if someone says that science alone reveals all truth (scientism), they cannot reveal that truth from a scientific experiment and thus the idea itself is immediately falsified. If they state that nothing should be believed unless it can be confirmed scientifically, then the belief itself must be rejected because it cannot be proven through science. Anti-realism and scientism are two unintelligent, pathetic philosophies that can be refuted with complete objectivity. It is foolish and intellectually false to pretend that we cannot objectively know if scientism or anti-realism are true or false because we are influenced by whether or not we desire them to be true.
One of the primary reasons I wrote this is because I saw a particularly dumb statement on social media from someone at my college saying that the writer could not help succumbing to the confirmation bias when surveying reality and that "we all" surround ourselves with people who simply affirm our existing beliefs. Very ironic, considering the number of people who immediately commented on his post and congratulated or concurred with his declaration. Yes, many people select a worldview based on what they hope is true. Some people are Christians because they find the concept of a forgiving and loving deity very comforting and appealing. Some people believe in atheism because they don't want theism to be true or because they wish to effectively become their own gods or goddesses. Some people are moral objectivists just because they have strong moral feelings, and others are moral relativists because they don't want there to be universally binding objective moral truths which they can't measure up to. Some people remain anti-intellectual because they simply do not want to engage in the great responsibility, caution, and logical precision involved in rationalism.
So it is undeniable that some people deliberately or unintentionally and subconsciously choose their beliefs based on preference. But this does not mean it is impossible to grasp certain facts objectively or to make no assumptions. Discipline and time may be required. The goal of objectivity may be elusive or difficult for many people but that does not make it impossible or mean that EVERYONE adopts philosophical beliefs based on preference.
*While I know that total skepticism is impossible and intellectually incorrect I also know that there are numerous things we cannot truly know for sure. For instance, we cannot prove or know for sure whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow, if alien life exists, if the adults who raised us are our biological parents, if we are inhabiting the Matrix, or if the Illuminati secretly control all global politics. However, there are things I know for sure, like my own existence and the existence of universal laws of logic.
"I hear Christians, relativists, and ignorant people from many ideological backgrounds and creeds agree [that it is impossible to objectively know anything about reality]."
ReplyDeleteLumping in Christians, relativists and ignorant people together in the same boat may be a little dishonest. Each may be "skeptical" in there own way but I see differences in each category.
For example:
I would be more inclined to believe that you confuse "epistemological skepticalism" with "blind faith" in the Christian camp.
Relativists who are "skeptical" may refer to a large number of people. However, since the term "relativist" is often used when referring to morality I would guess you are confusing "moral skepticism" with "epistemological skepticalism".
I do not know what you consider an "ignorant person" but I would assume these are people whom you see as anti-knowledge. These people may not see the importance of answering vital worldview questions.
Well Daniel, my Christian college of HBU has introduced me to an alarming ratio of people I know who call themselves Christians and yet claim that no actual objectivity or absolute certainty exists in the human condition. These Christians are not mistaking their own potential "blind faith" for an inability to confirm something, they are denying that any true knowledge is possible.
DeleteRelativists are not total skeptics or they would not believe in relativism. And while many people are used to hearing about relativism in an ethical context, there are many forms of it--epistemological, aesthetic, and religious relativism, for instance.
A person does not have to be anti-intellectual or, as you put it, "anti-knowledge" to be ignorant, though of course that attitude makes it exponentially easier to remain or become ignorant.
I remember writing this post partly because I noticed someone from HBU claim that true objectivity is impossible (though I don't remember if he limited this claim to certain matters or all of knowledge). That is what motivated or "provoked" the focus of this post.
After reading this I got a similar little red flag. There is a lot about skepticism that you leave unaddressed. I prob just have to keep reading though
ReplyDeleteIf you are piggybacking off of what Daniel said (seems like your first sentence is), I replied to him and addressed some of his statements.
DeleteObviously, the issue of skepticism is much more extensive than what I covered here. My exclusive goal here was to criticize an idea I had heard around the time I wrote this--the belief that objectivity is not attainable. But elsewhere I have written far more extensively/often about rationalism, self-evident truths, the simulation hypothesis, absurdism, and other things related to skepticism. You know me very well--I am a skeptic myself regarding most claims about anything! But discussing the whole of skepticism, precisely clarifying what truths are impossible for a conscious thinking being like me to not know, defining and identifying axioms, and mentioning what specific foundations of skepticism are logically legitimate or not were never the objective of this post. I was mostly trying to show that people who claim objectivity is impossible, if they are correct, are actually incorrect--so they are incorrect either way.