Global skepticism and its philosophical implications

Global Skepticism is perhaps the most radical skeptic current that we may find in philosophy. As opposed to local skepticism, global skepticism simply "denies that we have any knowledge at all." There are several arguments that can be used in support of this statement.

Going back to Gorgias, who asserted that "nothing exists or if something exists, it cannot be known, or if something does exist and can be known, it cannot be communicated," skepticism followed on the path that knowledge is not possible, in other words, that there are no facts that we can deem to be certain in any condition. The first argumentation that skeptics used in this sense, within the notion of global skepticism, was referred to as sensory skepticism. Obviously, the ties with materialistic beliefs relate sensory skepticism to the sensorial perceptions that one may have.

As such, we can, for example, believe that aliens do exist if we saw or touched a real live alien. If such a thing is not possible, then aliens do not exist or we have no knowledge of their existence.

However, the global skeptics find arguments to bring forth against the theory that, perhaps, we may prove our knowledge through our senses. Indeed, the sensorial perception differs from one individual to another, to the extent that it does not alter the object's properties, but our own perception about it. For example, if we take a sphere painted red, most of the individuals will see it as a red sphere, however, a color-blind person will not perceive as such. Because there would be a voice that would say the sphere is otherwise, we may not assume to an absolute level that the sphere is red, because there is an element of doubt: someone perceived it as being of a different color.

This argument is quite strong, because the Skeptic point-of-view always leaves the benefit of the doubt and leads us to believe that there may be perhaps a sensorial perception that would prove the theory wrong. If doubt exists, then knowledge cannot exist at the same time. This is where we may introduce, as a non-Skeptic argument, the argument of probability.

This argument would rely on the fact that sensorial perception is limited to one's person and, in this sense, at least a certain degree of knowledge is possible, a degree high enough to make the issue true. In this sense, for example, we may assert that we are not convinced that the entire population sees the sphere red, but from the group of persons we have interrogated, everybody does.

If we look in parallel to the Skeptic and non-Skeptic argumentation, we will see that, from a sensorial point-of-view, the non-Skeptic argument is always much weaker. This is simply because the Skeptic can always use doubt and can always bring out the 'what if' argument. This would mean that even if we would be able to question the entire Earth population, a Skeptic will be able to ask 'what if we haven't covered everything' or' what if there is someone we haven't asked that sees the sphere differently'. The fact that in the interrogated group everybody does is only an extra point for the fact that knowledge is not absolute.

Quite close to the parallel I have presented previously, we have the criterion of truth. According to this, "any criterion used to judge the truth of a claim can be challenged because a further criterion is needed by which to judge the present criterion, and so on ad infinitum." This argument is based again on the doubt principle, but has also close ties with the religious argument brought about by St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God, known as the First Cause.

The Skeptic argumentation that I have previously presented in the former paragraph can have only one non-Skeptical argument, based on the First Cause argumentation I have mentioned. According to this, the procedure cannot continue ad infinitum, because there is a first criterion, who is God or any other almighty being, initiator of all things. The existence of this first criterion can, however, be counterpoised of a similar manner. If we have a first criterion, do we have any knowledge of it? If we compare this to God, it is almost certain that we not only have no knowledge, but we also have no access to it. This further strengthens the point-of-view according to which we cannot have absolute knowledge of facts.

Because I have mentioned God and the existence of the First Cause, counter arguments brought by the non-Skeptical can include the fact that not all our justifications are brought about by sensorial perceptions. One can appeal to reason, faith or feelings to prove the existence of a fact. We are often in the situation of saying that we know with all our hearts that something is true, but we cannot find material or physical evidence to show that this is such.

Faith is the best example in this sense. People who believe in God do so because of their faith and of their belief in religious facts, but not because God revealed himself to them or because his existence has been proven by physical variables, but because religious people believe he exists and he directs and determines events in their lives. Materially and from a sensorial point-of-view, we have no knowledge of him, but faith proves he exists.

This brings us to another point in our discussion, a non-Skeptical argument that may prove useful, given the fact that most of the Skeptical are quite convincing and difficult to respond to. While absolute knowledge can perhaps be proven not to exist on an individual level, we can prove the existence of relative knowledge, in the sense of individual perceptions on each fact, perceptions that may be different from those around us.