Modern Skepticism

Today there are four basic forms of skepticism.

1. Iterative skepticism: the skeptic simply responds to each assertion with a question like, “How do you know?” but usually
   fails to provide an argument on behalf of his view.¹
2. Global skepticism: the skeptic claims that there is, “no knowledge…in any area of human thought.”²
3. Local skepticism: the skeptic agrees that there is knowledge in some areas of thought (e.g. in mathematics, science, etc.)
   but denies knowledge is possible in other areas of thought (e.g., religious knowledge, ethical knowledge, etc.).³
4. Methodological (heuristic) skepticism: the skeptic uses questions like, “how does one know that X” as a guiding principle
   as an aide to understanding issues of how one knows something.⁴

Digging Deeper into Modern Skepticism:

1. Iterative Skepticism (IS): this skeptic simply responds to each assertion with a question like, “How do you know?” but
   usually fails to provide an argument on behalf of her view.

This is a very common approach to a wide variety of subjects. This skeptic attempts merely to question other
views but offers little sound argumentation in return. For example, I was talking with Vanessa about Neil Armstrong’s
lunar landing. Though she once held that he landed on the moon, due to the observations of one of her friends
Vanessa no longer believes that Armstrong, or anyone else, made it to the moon. She went on to explain some of the
reasons as follows:

1. If someone landed on the moon, why has no one been back?
2. The difficulty of getting to the moon is too great and, with the limited technology available in the 1960’s, it is
   unlikely that a person landed on the moon.
3. The landing was probably a fabrication inspired by the United State’s need to be first in the space race.
4. There are too many other unanswered questions that make believing in the lunar landing possible.

This is a typical example of the iterative skeptic (IS) tradition. The goal is to raise questions that challenge the issue
at hand and then use the doubt created by this method as a means to draw the conclusion that the view is wrong.
This means that if a person is unable to answer all of the questions raised by the IS the IS is right by default. In other
words, the IS does not actually need to support her case. Rather, she need only to question the other person by
asking questions akin to “how do you know?” until the opponent is unable to answer and then the IS wins…. Or so
she believes.

Pitfalls to the IS position:
There seems to be an assumption that all (seemingly) relevant questions must be answered before one can say
that he actually knows something. In other words, Bob cannot know that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon
unless he first has a reasonable response to the challenges above. This is because even if the issues raised by the IS
seem farfetched (and some are) they must be reasonably and decisively answered before Bob can conclude that
Armstrong made it to the moon.

Let’s look at the four issues above that call into question Armstrong’s moon landing as our working example for
the IS and how to work through this tactic. 

Objection a: If we had made it to the moon, why have we not been back?

This is a typically deceptive question for those who are not lunar savvy. First, the goal is to distract the issue
away from all of the evidence in support of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. Evidence like: Armstrong’s testimony
(is he a liar?), returning with moon rock (some 48 lbs.), testimony of the second man to land on the moon
with Armstrong (Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin), unaltered video clips and photos of their presence on the moon, the
American flag still on the moon, and more. Simply put, the question about why no one has been back has no
bearing on the issue. This kind of question tends merely to confuse the issue, which is a common skeptical
tactic. The skeptic likes to wrap herself in doubt and confusion since these are the blankets that keep the
skeptic warm.

It must be noted that this question is also very misleading since it implies that no one has been back to
the moon, which is historically erroneous. In fact, the US been back to the moon multiple times (Apollo 12, 14,
15, 16, and 17 all set a man on the moon). Thus the first seed of doubt is based on false information.
For more information click here.

Objection b: The difficulty of getting to the moon is too great and, with the limited technology available in the 1960’s,
it is unlikely that we landed a person on the moon.

This is true. There were an untold number of complex issues that had to be overcome before a person could
land on the moon. However, just because the odds are against it, and the odds were definitely against it, does
not mean it did not happen. This argument only brings up the difficulty of making it to the moon and avoids
discussing the evidence supporting the event. What are the odds that someone would get the license plate
number that she has? It is very unlikely. Yet, that is the one possessed (think about your license plate number
and the odds of having it). Just because the odds are against it does not make it impossible. The odds of being
able to make a fully loaded 747 fly (over four hundred tons for current versions) are high but it hardly follows
that it has not happened.

Objection c: The landing was probably a fabrication inspired by the United State’s need to be first in the space race.

This is the classic “conspiracy theory” stance. The major problem with this is that the IS provides no real
evidence (and usually no evidence at all [remember, doubt is not evidence]) against the lunar landings. Nor
does the IS supply any real evidence for the conspiracy theory. Additionally, this thinking simply ignores the
weight of evidence for the lunar landings. A real argument cannot ignore known evidence but must address it.
[A more recent example of the “conspiracy theory” happened with the first beheading of an American in Iraq
during the US led occupation. The beheading was said to have been made up to help get Arab support.
Naturally, no real evidence was given for this conspiracy theory. Additionally, when more beheadings
happened this theory subsided but with a noted lack of conspiracy theorists admitting they were wrong.] 

Objection d: There are too many unanswered questions that make believing in the lunar landing possible.

This is probably true but the IS must present them and also provide a good answer to the evidence in
support of the lunar landings. Otherwise, the IS has not done anything to advance the argument for her
position or against the lunar landing. The IS seems to believe that it is intellectually virtuous simply to challenge
someone else’s belief without providing many, if any, sound arguments for her own beliefs. While questions are
an integral part of intellectual integrity (see methodological skepticism below), IS is hardly an intellectually
virtuous stance. We need to make sure that such mind-games are rewarded accordingly. 

2. Global Skepticism (GS): the global skeptic claims that there is, “no knowledge…in any area of human thought

The basic problem is the apparent self-refuting nature of this position. Claiming that there is no knowledge in any
area of human thought is saying, “We know that we have no knowledge.” Such a claim is a claim to knowledge.
How can one know that one does not know anything? The skeptic does not know! Thus, it seems absurd to embrace
such a view. 

3. Local Skepticism (LS): the local skeptic agrees that there is knowledge in some areas of thought (e.g. in mathematics,
   in science, etc.) but denies knowledge is possible in some specific areas of thought (e.g., religious knowledge, ethical
   knowledge, etc.).

One striking problem with LS arises due to the fact that many of the challenges used to claim that religious knowledge
(for instance) is not possible also effect other areas of knowledge that the LS typically embraces. As an example,
one common charge against being able to know if God exists is that there is no empirical evidence for His existence.
Assuming this is true, this same challenge can be leveled at other areas of knowledge. There is no empirical evidence
for the existence of numbers, laws of logic, the mind, and morality (like justice or injustice, love or hate, etc.). This
puts the LS in a quandary: how can the LS accept knowledge in one area (laws of logic, numbers, etc.), which have
no empirical evidence supporting them, and then claim that the lack of empirical evidence is sufficient to reject
knowledge of God’s existence?

Ironically, the philosophical analysis of such issues by the LS (and others) also lacks the same empirical grounds
demanded by the LS for knowledge in other areas. In other words, the LS has a hard time being consistent
in applying criteria for knowledge. Naturally, the solution lies in realizing that it is incorrect to insist on an empirical
standard for knowledge regarding non-empirical items. The test for truth must be content specific.

4. Methodological (heuristic) Skepticism: the methodological skeptic uses questions like, “how does one know that X” as a
   guiding principle to aide understanding issues of how one knows something.

This is the right approach as long as 1) the motives are right (seeking truth) and 2) the truth is accepted regardless
if we like it or not. Using this type of skepticism will lead one to an intellectually virtuous life including having more
true beliefs than false beliefs.

¹ J. P. Moreland, and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove:
Intervarsity, 2003), 93.
² Moreland & Craig 95.
³ Moreland & Craig 95.
⁴ Moreland & Craig 94.