What is your answer?

Let's assume that we can't deduce the existence of external objects from facts about our sensations. The skeptic would conclude that

    { 1 } - we have no knowledge of external objects.
    { 2 } - facts about our sensations can be evidence for beliefs about external objects.
    { 3 } - statements about external objects can be translated into statements about our sensations.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is correct!

Let's assume that we can't deduce the existence of external objects from facts about our sensations. The skeptic would conclude that

The skeptic could argue this way:

    Experience and reason don't yield knowledge of external objects.
    There's no source of knowledge besides experience and reason.
    So we have no knowledge of external objects.
Chisholm objects that we DO have knowledge of external objects. So something must be wrong with the skeptic's reasoning.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is wrong. Please try again.

Let's assume that we can't deduce the existence of external objects from facts about our sensations. The skeptic would conclude that

    { 1 } - we have no knowledge of external objects.
    { 2 } - facts about our sensations can be evidence for beliefs about external objects.
    { 3 } - statements about external objects can be translated into statements about our sensations.

This is critical cognitivism, not skepticism.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is wrong. Please try again.

Let's assume that we can't deduce the existence of external objects from facts about our sensations. The skeptic would conclude that

    { 1 } - we have no knowledge of external objects.
    { 2 } - facts about our sensations can be evidence for beliefs about external objects.
    { 3 } - statements about external objects can be translated into statements about our sensations.

This is reductionism, not skepticism.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end