Thread by @EveKeneinan

This is the second time today I’ve had to address this particular sophist. I’ll boil it down:

1 “We,” that is, humans, do not have access to the ultimate

2 I, a human, in direct contradiction to 1, have sufficient access to the ultimate to know with absolute certainty that 1

https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1136000845198364678

When skeptics make this line of argument, @HPluckrose, they seem not to be aware that they are making epistemological claims as vast as those of any theologian or metaphysician.

They seem to think they are being “humble” when they declare universal ignorance, but this is false.

@HPluckrose The skeptic who declares that “we can’t know” is being no less dogmatic or sweeping in her claims than the metaphysician who declares we can know. Both are metaphysicians, making universal claims about the nature of Being.

Both are epistemologically in the same boat.

CAVEAT ON THIS TWEET:

I got “autocorrected.” It should read “This particular SOPHISM.”

I was NOT calling @HPluckrose a sophist. I do think she was employing a sophism, but that’s a different thing. One may employ a sophism without meaning to do so. Sophistry is intentional.

The SOPHISM is the pseudo-skeptical dogmatic claim that “we” CAN’T KNOW such-and-such in a sweeping manner, such that by the very nature of the claim, excludes the speaker from “we,” since she KNOWS enough to KNOW “we can’t KNOW” in direct contradiction to her own original claim.

Wittgenstein said it in an aphorism: