Is skepticism self refuting?

[yellowbastard]

My friend is an extreme skeptic. He will not believe anything he can doubt. For example, it's possible to doubt the first moon landing in 1969 therefore he doesn't believe it happened.

Is this position not self-refuting? If he believes absolutely nothing is this not something?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He will not believe anything he can doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see his list of "things you can't doubt."

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this position not self-refuting? If he believes absolutely nothing is this not something?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Does that answer your question?

[yellowbastard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this position not self-refuting? If he believes absolutely nothing is this not something?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.


Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this position not self-refuting? If he believes absolutely nothing is this not something?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.


Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be?

Does the empty set contain members because it exists?

[madnak]

I don't understand. Does he believe there wasn't a moon landing, or just that's there some theoretical uncertainty?

I'm an "extreme skeptic" myself, and I understand the contradiction you're pointing out, but I don't think it necessarily holds. I believe it's impossible to be certain of anything, but I also believe I could be wrong about that.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this position not self-refuting? If he believes absolutely nothing is this not something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Skepticism in the way your friend uses it is a tool that's applied to real world beliefs or things that can have a factual basis. It's not really meant to apply to itself or philosophical questions.

That said, your friend sounds like an idiot.

[RocketPiquette]

To me, it is self refuting.

If he says that nothing is certain, then he is certain of that. Therefore, there is a contradiction.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He will not believe anything he can doubt. For example, it's possible to doubt the first moon landing in 1969 therefore he doesn't believe it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several basic flaws in your friends positions ( whether he fully qualifies for phil's 'idiot' or not).
Even so, perhaps your friend would understand a simple twist that his claim causes. Take the moon-landing. Say there is room for doubt so he doesn't believe. Is there room to doubt it was a hoax? natch. so he doesn't believe that either.

He's down to "I don't believe it happened and I don't believe it's a hoax." etc. Eventually he's down to thinking he may have entirely hallucinated it, but there's naturally doubt of that. Leaving him below solipsism and a rung or two below Descartes.

ok,ok, maybe Phil is onto something.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Is this position not self-refuting? </font>

I think it's more paradoxical. Yes, there is room for doubt that most things are true, but then... There is room for doubt that these things are false as well. Bottom line: Your friend is a basket case when it comes to logical thinking.