Response To Skepticism

Discuss Putnam’s response to skepticism

This essay aim to critically discuss Putnam’s response to the Brain in a vat argument.Based on the required reading by DeRose,I will start by explaining a specific form of skeptical argument and what is “BIV”,a skeptical hyphothesis which is famous in philosophy.Then I’ll explain Putnam’s response to BIV from the perspective of semantic externalism and analyse it.Finally,I’ll reach a conclusion both on Putnam’s response and my understanding of BIV arument.

As DeRose states,there are many different forms of skeptical argument,of which I have learned about Decartes’ dream argument and Malignant Demon argument.This essay will focus on the form of argument,which is a skeptical hyphothesis,
I don 't know that not-H.
2. If I don 't know that not-H, then I don 't know that O.
So, C. I don 't know that O” (DeRose,1999)
DeRose explained that 'O ' is something a person would think he knows, while 'H ' is a properly selected skeptical hypothesis.In fact Both Dream Argument and Malignant Demon argument can be demonstrated in this form.
For the dream argument:
1.I don’t know that I am not dreaming
2.If I don’t know that I am not dreaming,I don’t know that all my senses are ture
3.So,C.I don’t know that my senses are true.
And for the Malignant Demon argument:
1.I don’t know that there’s not a Malignant Demon who deceives me on everything
2.If I don’t know that there’s not a Malignant Demon who deceives me on everything,I don’t know that I have a body and all the external things like the sky or the air really exist
3.So,C.I don’t know that I have a body and all the external things like the sky or the air really exist UID 3035086742 Page 1 of 4
As we can see,for premise 1,”H”should be a skeptical hyphothesis which is hard to rull out the possibility that it is true.When it comes to premise 2,the “O”should be true only when “H”is
After all,Putnam’s response can’t efficiently challenge the BIV argument because it is tricky in defining BIV.Apart from this,I will then give my opinion about the BIV-like arguments.

Firstly,I want to argue that Decartes’ Malignant Demon argument is better in doubting past beliefs than BIV argument for the reason that it only considers “I” as a “thinking thing” rather than a physical object”Brain in a vat”.

As we know,in the BIV argument,there is still a belief which hasn’t been doubt:We attain all the knowlege,beliefs,and perception through a physical object named brain.But what if we don’t really get those things through a brain?What if even the belief that we get those things through a brain is also decieved by,like,a malignant