Lecture 6. Scepticism and Knowledge.

1. Problems of Knowledge and Scepticism. What is knowledge?

1. Problems of Knowledge and Scepticism. What is knowledge?

The problem of scepticism and knowledge arises from the attempt to answer one fundamental
question: Do we have any knowledge in this world that is so certain that nobody can doubt it?
(Russell, 1978: 3) You can readily think of so many things you can claim to know with assurance.
You also have numerous beliefs which guide what you should do and what you ought not to do.
Further, you believe that out of all these beliefs, you know how to separate between those beliefs
which you consider to be true and those you consider to be false. The question however is: Do we
know with certainty that those beliefs we consider to be true or false are actually true or false? If we
do know with certainty, how did we arrive at this certainty? A more fundamental question is: How
do we even know that we know anything? What does it mean to know something?
Let us consider some statements about knowledge:
1. The government knows that politics sometimes hinders1 the common good;
2. I know how to use the laptop;
3. The barber claims to know the president of the United States;
4. He is knowledgeable in mathematics and statistics;
5. I know that God exists;
6. The man and the woman have known each other for the past ten years;
7. Everybody knows that the capital of Azerbaijan is Baku.
There are several things that we can say about all these knowledge claims. Let us first
eliminate those that are really not claims to knowledge. Examples 2 and 4 refer to the skill that one
possesses in being able to do something. Examples 3 and 6 refer to the familiarity or experience of a
place or people. Examples 1, 5 and 7 represent certain information about facts that we are aware of.
All these examples help us to classify knowing into three fundamental categories: knowledge by
acquaintance (or, knowledge of: things, places and persons); knowledge of a skill or a special ability
or the performance of a task (or, knowledge how); and knowledge of certain facts (or, knowledge
that). We will not be bothered 2 here about the relationship between these three types of knowledge.
1
hinder ['hɪndə] - mane olmaq, əngəl törətmək.
2
bother ['bɔðə] - narahat olmaq.
1
The important point to make is that out of the three categories of knowledge highlighted above, the
most important for philosophers is knowledge that (or what can also be called propositional3
knowledge). The reason for this is simple. Take knowledge how for example. It is possible for a
person to possess the knowledge of how to cure 4 diabetes using herbal means without being able to
convey5 what he knows to anybody. Knowledge that, however, assumes the possession of specific
information, which people can convey to others to be judged true or false. For example, if I have
lived with friend for five months, can I assert6 that I know him? Yet, most of us uncritically assert:
“I know him very well.” We even assert ‘I know Obama” without ever meeting with him!
Propositional knowledge is interesting for the epistemologist because
when we claim the knowledge of a fact or information, there is a prospect 7 of a mistake in what we
have claimed. There is a possibility that the evidence we propose to back up our claim may not be
adequate or relevant to support the claim. Propositional knowledge implies the possession of a piece
of information that is not open to falsehood8. In other words, any claim to know that so and so must
be so certain, definite and reliable that it cannot be doubted. If I claim to know that 2 + 2 = 4, then it
must not turn out that this is not so. But when we say we know that so and so, what is it that we
know? There is a consensus in epistemology that knowledge derives from our beliefs. As human
beings, we believe many things. We believe that the world will end one day; we believe that a man
is stronger than a woman; we believe that most crimes are committed by men; we believe that there
is God; we believe that the email is faster than the post mail; we believe that we shall die before our
children; we believe that we live long to transcend 9 our present condition; we believe that night
follows day and day follows night; and so on. The problem however is not with what we believe.
The philosophical problem is: Which of my beliefs is to be counted as knowledge? In other words,
which of my beliefs are true and which are false? Which of them can I depend on to live my life
meaningfully? This question is fundamental because for something to count as knowledge, that
thing must first be true. You cannot claim to know what is obviously false. For instance, you can say
you have knowledge when you believe that the world is flat rather than spherical. If I believe that
there are people living in the sun, and that belief is not true, then I can’t claim any specific
knowledge that there are people living in the sun.
3
proposition [ˌprɔpə'zɪʃən] - təsdiqləmə, təsdiq etmə.
4
cure [kjuə] - n müalicə; v müalicə etmək, sağaltmaq
5
convey [kən'veɪ] - 1) göndərmək, yollamaq, aparmaq ; 2) məlumat vermək (xəbəri).
6
assert [ə'səːt] - təsdiq eləmək.
7
prospect ['prɔspekt], [prəs'pekt] - 1. n. 1) perspektiv, mənzərə, görünüş; 2) gələcək planlar.
8
falsehood ['fɔːlshud] - yalan, uydurma.
9
transcend [træn'send] - 1) hüdudları aşmaq; 2) ötüb keçmək, üstün gəlmək, geridə buraxmaq.
2
 The second point about knowledge is that if we claim to know that something is so or not so,
then we must believe what we claim to know. This point emphasises the idea that belief is just as
aspect of knowledge. It sounds awkward if you say, “I know that Man U will defeat Arsenal by
three goals, but I don’t believe it.” Lastly, for us to accept that you know that so and so, then you
must give us certain reasons why you believe that so and so. Though knowledge is really an aspect
of belief, it goes beyond belief in the sense that what counts as knowledge is: belief plus evidence
for what we are claiming. If this evidence is not there, or is not adequate or does not support the
claim, then we cannot say we have any knowledge. If I ask you why you know that Man U will beat
Arsenal, and you reply, “I just know,” then we cannot really say that you know that Man U will
defeat Arsenal. Thus, to claim the knowledge that so and so is the case, what you claim to know
must first be true, you must believe in what you claim is so and so, and you must have a reason or
evidence for believing that so and so is the case.
2. Scepticism.

But, is it possible to know something in such a way that the knowledge cannot be doubted?
Is it possible to justify or give evidence for our beliefs in such a way that they will not be false?
There are some that hold the claim that there is none of our beliefs that can be justified in such a
way that they will not be false. These people are called the sceptics; and their position is called
scepticism. Scepticism is the position that we can never have enough certainty in our claim to
knowledge.
Scepticism comes in two forms: universal scepticism and limited scepticism. Universal
scepticism is the claim that we can never know anything for certain. This sceptic argues that human
beings cannot have any kind of knowledge of anything because none of our beliefs are ever justified.
These beliefs are never justified because there would always be reasons to doubt the reasons we give
in support of them. This position is however a very difficult one to hold because it already
presupposes that there is at least one thing that we can know. In other words, if I claim that we can’t
know anything for certain, then I am also claiming that I know something for certain: What I know
for certain is that we can never know anything for certain.
Limited scepticism, on the other hand, escapes this self-defeating nature of universal
scepticism in that it holds the position that some of our knowledge claims — especially in science,
religion and ethics; or about
memory, perception or the external world—are really not justified, and hence cannot be held with
certainty. This type of scepticism focuses our attention to specific issues and areas of human
3
endeavours10. For instance, the limited sceptic can query11 whether we can know for certain that the
external world exists. Can you know for certain that the table in front of you or the book you are
reading actually exists? Philosophical scepticism, in general, questions the reasons, evidence and
justification that we have for believing what we claim to believe. The fundamental challenge of the
sceptic is not about the standards we employ to prove the truth of our claims. Rather, the challenge
the sceptic poses12 is whether or not those standards are appropriate in supporting our claims. If I ask
how you know that there is a table right in front of you, your answer is likely to be that you can see
and feel the table. Your answer assumes that the senses are adequate to prove that we know
something. But my next question would be: How do you know that your eyes are telling you the
truth about what you are seeing? If you agree that your eyes have deceived you once, how are you
then sure that they are not presently deceiving13 you? Can you place your certainty in something that
has deceived you many times in the past? All this may seem like a trivial 14, impracticable and
fruitless issue to you.
How can I not know that I am holding a book in my hand right now? How can I not know
that my TV is on if it is on? How can I not know that I am awake now and not dreaming? To even
ask these questions only
shows that you have not really come to term with the fundamental nature of your own self as a
human being.
Scepticism comes from the Greek word skeptikos meaning “an inquirer15,” someone who is
always searching for truth. Such an inquirer is someone who is not easily satisfied with claims that
are not backed up with sufficient evidence. In this sense, we are all sceptics because we all also raise
doubt about things that are
perplexing16 to us and around us: We ask whether we can adequately raise our children to be good
citizens; we ask whether the rain will fall; we ask whether democracy can survive the corruption in
Azerbaijan; we ask whether God exists and whether He notices our sufferings and agonies; we can
ask whether we can pass our exams; we ask whether the world will end one day; we ask whether the

10
endeavour [ɪn'devə] - 1. v. cəhd eləmək,can atmaq; 2. n. cəhd, can atma.
11
query ['kwɪərɪ] - 1. n. sual, sorğu; 2. v. 1) soruşmaq, xəbər almaq; 2) şübhələnmək.
12
pose [pəuz] - qoymaq (məsələ, tapşırıq).
13
deceive [dɪ'siːv] – aldatmaq.
14
trivial ['trɪvɪəl] - 1) adi, gündəlik, köhnəlmiş, köhnə, bayağı; 2) cüzi, əhəmiyyətsiz; 3) mənasız, dəyərsiz (adam).
15
inquiry [ɪn'kwaɪərɪ] - 1) arayış; 2) sual, sorğu; 3) istintaq, sorğu-sual.
16
perplex [pə'pleks] - çaşmaq, karıxmaq, qarışdırmaq, dolaşıq salmaq.
4
sun will collide17 with the earth in orbit; we ask whether AIDS is real and deadly; and so on. We
raise all manner of doubtful questions about things and
assumptions that are not consistent with what we believe. Scepticism is very significant in human
life because: “Scepticism as an idea connotes 18 the critical spirit: the tendency of not being easily
satisfied with simple or superficial evidence and striving to accept only incorrigible 19 beliefs that are
absolutely certain (2000: 55)”.
Thus, scepticism is significant in two respects: (a) it helps us not to accept claims and
dogmatic statements that are not supported with evidence; and (b) it also motivates us to reflect on
our own claims so as to make only those claims that we can support adequately with genuine
evidence. Imagine getting an email saying that you have just won 500 000 manats. The email further
requires that you deposit 5 000 manats in a certain account in order to claim your winnings. What
would be your immediate response? I suspect that response would be an immediate doubt: How did
I come to win an amount I did not play for? Then, if you want to explore your curiosity 20 the more,
you may want to play along with the spam message to see how it will turn out. Once you refuse to
take the email (or any other thing for that matter) on face value alone, we can say you are a sceptic.
The whole essence of scepticism is just that: to help us in scrutinising 21 our claims and the claims of
others before we decide to take any action on them.
Summary
In this Study Session, we discussed what knowledge is all about, what it means “to know”
something, how we can differentiate between what counts as belief and what counts as knowledge.
We learnt that though
knowledge is an aspect of belief, it goes beyond belief in the sense that to have knowledge about
anything, it must be made up of our belief and the evidence we have to support that belief. We also
saw the skeptical challenge to those things we claim to know for certain. In conclusion, we saw that
scepticism is essential for us in two relevant 22 senses. One, it gives us the critical spirit to scrutinize
the claims that others make for their beliefs; and two, it also motivates us to scrutinize our own
claims before we go on to act on them.

17
collide [kə'laɪd] - toqquşmaq, qarşı-qarşıya çıxmaq.
18
connote [kɔ'nəut] – ifadə etmək.
19
incorrigible [ɪn'kɔrɪdʒəbl] - düzəlməz, islah olunmaz, düzəlməsi mümkün olmayanş
20
curiosity [ˌkjuərɪ'ɔsɪtɪ] - n maraq; hər şeyi bilmək (öyrənmək) həvəsi.
21
scrutinize ['skruːtɪnaɪz] - 1) gözdən keçirmək, dəqiq yoxlamaq; 2) dəqiq öyrənmək, dürüst tədqiq eləmək.
22
relevant ['relɪvənt] - yerində, uyğun, münasib, işə aid olan.
5