Jonathan Vogel argues that a non-skeptical approach to the knowledge of the world is necessary before making any conclusion. The best explanation of what happens around the external world is provided through a real-world hypothesis and not an isomorphic skeptical hypothesis based on Vogel. The two premises revealed from Vogel’s argument are the real world hypothesis versus the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis. An individual’s sensory experiences are based on the two premises that display the pattern in how people make decisions and inferences under a similar situation.
In the world, two sets of people in a similar situation may have different explanations for the conclusion they make based on the argument that perception functions in varying schools of thought. The set of people that view a situation from the real-world hypothesis school of thought consider the actual presence of truth in a scenario without reason for doubt. The isomorphic skeptical hypothesis challenges the existence of truth in every scenario and requires evidence to support any type of knowledge. Conclusions about knowledge are made from the under-determination principle that evaluates the information available in a mutually exclusive set up. The existence of water on Mars is one such mutually exclusive scenario that can be analyzed from the two alternative premises provided in Vogel’s argument.
E: Explain
The work of Vogel “Inference to the best explanation” supports the drawing of conclusions from the real world hypothesis over the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis. A person’s experiences and perceptions should, therefore, be drawn from the common sense. The real-world hypothesis seems plausible according to Vogel because the knowledge of the existence of certain properties is collected by sensory experiences. A human being has five common senses that are responsible for the collection of stimuli and information from the surrounding environment. The existence of stimuli collected by people’s common senses reveals the truth of their existence and should not be doubted.
The isomorphic skeptical hypothesis may seem plausible because it seeks more truth from information that is obtained by questioning their existence beyond simple understanding. The premise of the skeptical hypothesis further explains that under-determination leads to the acceptance of many false properties that are unquestioned by the real world hypothesis. Conclusions drawn from the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis seek to close the gap between the existence of certain properties and the way they appear from sensory experiences. The sensory experience could be misinformed but by closing the gap of appearance and actual existence provides clarity of knowledge.
Vogel argues in favor of the real world hypothesis over the skeptical hypothesis because some of the explanations offered under skepticism are unrealistic. In the work by Vogel, the deceiver argument is the proponent that reveals the deception that people’s senses absorb when collecting information. Inference to the best explanation recognizes the complex nature of conclusions made from a skeptical point of view and uses this to argue in favor of a more elaborate and direct conclusion.
Some of the key words mentioned in the two premises analyzed by Vogel are under-determination, ad hoc explanations and inferences. Under-determination in this concept refers to the manner in which knowledge is adopted with minimal criticism and evaluation. The minimal skepticism utilized in the real world hypothesis is stated to work with under-determination. The ad hoc explanation is the direct and simple explanation that requires minimal analysis to understand. Inferences refer to the conclusions drawn from information gathered from the surrounding environment.
C: Criticism
Vogel judges the two premises and deems the skeptical hypothesis inferior to the real world hypothesis due to the structure used to explain the conclusions. Elaborate and direct explanations provide a simple structure of understanding the world with less criticism on the sensory experiences. Perception in the real world hypothesis is drawn from sensory experiences and proponents of the premise prefer drawing conclusions from the hypothesis since it encounters less obstacles. However, the lack of obstacles when making conclusions from the real world hypothesis does not make inferences made from the premise to be superior.
In fact, the lack of obstacles in the real world hypothesis supported by Vogel draws reason for more criticism on the conclusions made using it. The acceptance of direct explanations with less skepticism allows the introduction of numerous errors when making conclusions (Gifford, p.685). Inferences made from the real world hypothesis are, hereby, more likely to be inferior when compared to the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis. Ad hoc explanations are likely to have more deception in the inference since the real world hypothesis accepts certain properties as they appear rather than as they exist.
Real world hypothesis also neglects the existence of deceivers that can manipulate the appearance of information as it is absorbed by common senses. The visual appearance of properties under the real world hypothesis does not prove the actual existence of the properties. Common sense may perceive the surrounding in a certain way but the actual conditions in the environment are not as perceived. The conclusion and explanation from the real world hypothesis is, therefore, inaccurate or misinformed due to the absence of criticism and skepticism provided by the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis. The world is not as direct and elaborate as the real world hypothesis would like to depict through the ad hoc explanations.
Advocates of the real world hypothesis such as Vogel could dispute the criticism leveled against the premise by suggesting that the occurrence of certain properties is definitely a result of the direct cause. For instance, common sense attributes the increase in the number of people contracting flu in a given area during the winter season to the cold weather, which is the direct cause. The potential response is evident in the work by Vogel in the example given about Dr. G diagnosing the symptoms exhibited by Roger (Tolly, p.335). The best explanation from this point of view is likely the direct explanation.
In response to this counter-argument, the increase in the number of people contracting flu during the winter season could be attributed to a number of reasons that are not directly visible. Criticism of the direct cause of an increase in the number of people with flu reveals that during the winter season, a number of alternative factors such as dust particles or coal pollution from people trying to warm themselves could contribute to some cases of flu contraction. Responding to the appearance of a direct cause by examining alternative causes, therefore, provides more accurate conclusions. The real hypothesis should, hereby, not be all about giving direct explanations but finding the accurate explanation.
The best explanation is supposed to provide correct inferences from the collection of all alternative information from the environment. Aspects that individuals observe are not necessarily as they appear and the actual properties have to be crucially analyzed. Critical examination of the real world’s appearance from the skeptical view increases the accuracy of information provided and supplements the simple common sense knowledge used by the premise. The criticisms raised against the real world hypothesis refute the statement by Vogel on its superior nature over the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis.
` The isomorphic skeptical hypothesis has a complex and thorough evaluation of real world situations, which aids in increasing the accuracy of its inferences. However, the skeptical hypothesis is not free from criticism since there are principles such as that of the deceiver argument that make it unreliable. The skeptical approach assumes that all scenarios have deceivers that tend to distort the actual information and present individuals with a false perception of the surrounding. In one example provided by Vogel, advocates of the hypothesis such as Zhuangzhi suggest that there are demons that manipulate the manner in which information is presented to the common sense.
Despite the existence of a situational gap between the actual reality and the perceived reality, not all situations comply with the deceiver argument. Deceivers are not present in all situations and there are times when the simple direct explanation is the accurate inference. Philosophers in support of the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis offer a counter argument to this criticism by suggesting that under-determination is the concept that leads to making of wrong conclusions. However, over-analyzing simple scenarios could lead to the complication of simple situations with direct concepts that are defined as ad hoc elaborations by the real world hypothesis.
Works Cited
Gifford, Matthew B. "Skepticism and elegance: problems for the abductivist reply to Cartesian skepticism." Philosophical studies 164.3. 2013: Pp. 685-704.
Tolly, Jeff. Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Diss. Davidson College, 2010. Pp. 327-335.
