Final answer:
Arguments against skepticism highlight that the demand for absolute certainty is an unreasonable standard for knowledge and instead, like G. E. Moore's common sense approach, suggest that reliable knowledge can be established through evidence and reason.
Step-by-step explanation:
Skeptical arguments assert that because we cannot be certain, we cannot truly know anything. This is particularly relevant when discussing philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge—especially justification—in specific domains like the existence of God or the validity of moral claims.
However, one key argument against skepticism revolves around the need for absolute certainty being an overly strict measure for justification.
British philosopher G. E. Moore provided a classic response to skepticism by invoking common sense. He demonstrated that the evidence for certain claims, such as the existence of one's own hands, can be so direct and robust that it defies skeptical doubts.
This pragmatic approach suggests that while certainty is an unreasonable standard, reliable knowledge can still be obtained through evidence and reason.
Another argument against skepticism is the concept of fallibilism, which accepts that while our knowledge might never be infallible or certain, it still can be sufficient for practical purposes.
Fallibilism is a moderate stance that allows us to proceed with cautious confidence in our beliefs and knowledge claims. It argues for a form of constructive skepticism that does not impede the pursuit of knowledge but rather encourages careful, rigorous inquiry.