Part of the point of externalism is to change the question—although it’s useful to note that to the extent the original question was framed in the term “knowledge”, the question hasn’t entirely changed. So, you can’t rule the skeptical scenario out, but you don’t need to. That sub-question is being abandoned, or at least severely demoted.
I second Larks’ recommendation, in another comment, of Nozick’s Philosophical Investigations. You can probably google up a summary or review to get a taste.
All the arguments for changing the question seem to be either pragmatist arguments (pragmatism does not correlate with truth in any event) or basically amount to “Take the existence of the world on faith” (which is no more useful than it is to take anything else on faith).
Part of the point of externalism is to change the question—although it’s useful to note that to the extent the original question was framed in the term “knowledge”, the question hasn’t entirely changed. So, you can’t rule the skeptical scenario out, but you don’t need to. That sub-question is being abandoned, or at least severely demoted.
I second Larks’ recommendation, in another comment, of Nozick’s Philosophical Investigations. You can probably google up a summary or review to get a taste.
All the arguments for changing the question seem to be either pragmatist arguments (pragmatism does not correlate with truth in any event) or basically amount to “Take the existence of the world on faith” (which is no more useful than it is to take anything else on faith).