Final answer:
Descartes' argument from illusion could be criticized for taking the fallibility of sense perception to an extreme that leads to philosophical skepticism, which is considered by some to be an implausible view that disregards the general reliability of sensory experiences.
Step-by-step explanation:
One could criticize Descartes' "argument from illusion" on grounds that it acknowledges the fallibility of sense perception as evidence that perception sometimes misrepresents reality. This argument is rooted in the idea that because illusions exist, our sensory experiences can't always be trusted, and therefore, we could be systematically deceived about the nature of the external world. The criticism may point out that acknowledging the fallibility of perception does not necessarily lead to philosophical skepticism or the conclusion that knowledge is impossible.
Moreover, the possibility of being wrong does not undermine all knowledge claims, as direct realists argue that while perceptions can be deceiving, they are generally reliable. Philosophical skepticism is a radical position that arises from taking these illusions seriously, but it might be criticized for overlooking the context in which perceptions are usually correct. Ultimately, Descartes' argument may be challenged for assuming that occasional perceptual errors discredit all sensory experiences and for potentially leading to an implausible global skepticism.