Which version of scepticism? Even the article you link to concedes there is,at least one form of scepticism that’s refutable through self defeat.
If extreme scepticism is self defeating, and certainty is unobtainable, then what you are left with is moderate scepticism—AKA fallibilism. What you need to try is the right an by if the right kind of scepticism.
I think you’ve just answered your own question more or less.
If the world is weird, I wish to believe that the world is weird.
The goal is to add up to truth.
If normality means supporting all your intuitions, then you are going to have to disbelieve much science and maths.
If it means something else …what?
We are in agreement here. And if you read to the end of the post you’ll see the answer to your question:
After all, science is the normality to which we would like philosophy to be adding to
Something can work in some contexts, but not in in others.
Empiricism doesn’t work for things you can’t see, eg:-
Modality, Counterfactuals, Possible versus Actual.
Normativity, Ought versus is.
Essence versus Existence, hidden explanatory mechanisms.
A priori truth could have a naturalistic basis. Many organisms can instinctively recognise food, predators, rivals and mates. But even the broadest evolutionary knowledge must that operate within the limits of empiricism .. not the “invisibles” I mentioned. And of course it is a rather different kind of apriori knowledge than analytical kind, based on language and tautologies.
I’m sorry I’m not going to spend time untangling this confusion in the comments. I hope that if you keep reading my posts you’ll eventually have enough insights to figure this out for yourself.
Space and time don’t need to be justifiable, because they are not propositions.
Their existence and properties are proposition.
I think you meant Euclidean.
That’s too, though I was mostly hinting to relativity.
Curious how our understanding of things that some people may assume are beyond observations are then happen to be changed by scientific discovery, isn’t it?
Almost all contemporary epistemologists will say that they are fallibilists
That’s nice. Though the key words here are “contemporary” and “epistemologists”.
There are still minor nuances with fallibilism like the fact that people still manage to be confused by the possibility of Cartesian Demon, but I’ll get to them in time.
We are in agreement here. And if you read to the end of the post you’ll see the answer to your question:
I have, and I still haven’t seen a definition of normality.
I think you meant Euclidean.
That’s too, though I was mostly hinting to relativity.
It’s general.relativity that implies non euclidean space.
Curious how our understanding of things that some people may assume are beyond observations are then happen to be changed by scientific discovery, isn’t it?
Not once you realise scientific discovery isn’t pure empiricism.
Almost all contemporary epistemologists will say that they are fallibilists
That’s nice. Though the key words here are “contemporary” and “epistemologists”.
So where are the philosophers obsessed with certainty? In the past, or in other departments?
I think you’ve just answered your own question more or less.
We are in agreement here. And if you read to the end of the post you’ll see the answer to your question:
I’m sorry I’m not going to spend time untangling this confusion in the comments. I hope that if you keep reading my posts you’ll eventually have enough insights to figure this out for yourself.
Their existence and properties are proposition.
That’s too, though I was mostly hinting to relativity.
Curious how our understanding of things that some people may assume are beyond observations are then happen to be changed by scientific discovery, isn’t it?
That’s nice. Though the key words here are “contemporary” and “epistemologists”.
There are still minor nuances with fallibilism like the fact that people still manage to be confused by the possibility of Cartesian Demon, but I’ll get to them in time.
I have, and I still haven’t seen a definition of normality.
It’s general.relativity that implies non euclidean space.
Not once you realise scientific discovery isn’t pure empiricism.
So where are the philosophers obsessed with certainty? In the past, or in other departments?