Difference between revisions of "Doubt" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Doubt''', a status between [[belief]] and [[wikt:disbelief|disbelief]], involves [[uncertainty]] or [[distrust]] or lack of sureness of an alleged [[fact]], an action, a motive, or a [[decision]]. Doubt may involve delaying or rejecting relevant action out of concerns for mistakes or faults or appropriateness.  
+
{{Copyedited}}{{Images OK}}{{submitted}}{{approved}}
 +
'''Doubt''', a status between [[belief]] and [[wikt:disbelief|disbelief]], involves [[uncertainty]], [[distrust]], or lack of sureness of an alleged [[fact]], an action, motive, or a [[decision]]. Doubt may involve delaying or rejecting relevant actions. 
 +
Human beings generally live with beliefs in various degrees of certainty. Doubt can play a positive role that leads one to critical examination or reflection in order to discern [[truth]] from falsity. Doubt of conventional beliefs or a framework of thought can also open up new insights and [[paradigm]]s of thought. Thus, reasonable levels of doubt is important for human thought and [[critical thinking]].
  
Human beings generally live with beliefs in various degrees of certainty toward different items and subject matters. [[Skepticism]] is a [[philosophy|philosophical]] position which denies some of epistemic conditions to attain certainty of knowledge. While skepticism denies a possibility of attaining certainty in knowledge, fallibilism does not hold such [[universality|universal]] claim. It rather reserve the [[logic]]al possibility of having mistaken beliefs in knowledge and takes a critical stance toward any form of [[dogmatism]].
+
[[Skepticism]] is a [[philosophy|philosophical]] position which denies some epistemic conditions necessary to attain [[belief and certainty|certainty]] of [[knowledge]]. While skepticism denies the possibility of attaining certainty in knowledge, fallibilism does not hold such a [[universality|universal]] claim. It rather reserves the [[logic]]al possibility of having mistaken beliefs in knowledge and takes a critical stance toward any form of [[dogmatism]].
 +
{{toc}}
 +
[[Rene Descartes]] used doubt as a philosophical [[methodology|method]] in his thought experiment to discover the indubitable principle. A well known phrase [[Cogito ergo sum]] ("I think, therefore I am") is the point he reached through his [[methodic doubt]], which properly means "I certainly exist as far as I doubt." Thus, doubt itself presupposes the certainly of the existence of the thinking self. [[Husserl]] also used this method in his early works to establish [[phenomenology]].
  
[[Rene Descartes]] used doubt as a philosophical [[methodology|method]] in his thought experiment to discover the indubitable principle. A well known phrase [[Cogito ergo sum]] ("I think, therefor I am") is the point he reached through his [[methodic doubt]], which properly means "I certainly exist as far as I doubt." Thus, doubt itself presuppose the certainly of the existence of thinking self who doubt. [[Husserl]] also used this method in his early works to establish [[phenomenology]].
+
==Doubt and critical thinking==
  
Since human beings can have false or mistaken [[belief and certainty|beliefs]], reasonable doubt is necessary or useful to discern reliable knowledge from unreliable knowledge.  
+
A human being lives with various kinds of [[belief and certainty|beliefs]]. The degree of certainty varies according to issues, subjects, and items. Some beliefs are highly probable and some are questionable. A human being has the capacity to critically examine the validity of a given idea. Doubt thus has a critical function to suspend one from taking an immediate belief stance and discern truth. Without this critical function of doubt, human beings can be trapped with all kinds of false beliefs, knowledge, and [[misinformation]].
 +
 
 +
Key philosophers in the [[history of philosophy]] cast doubt on the prevailing thought of his or her time, and presented radically new ways of thinking. This progress of thought takes place by thinkers' radical renewal of existing paradigms.
  
 
==Skepticism==
 
==Skepticism==
 
In a general sense, '''''skepticism''''' or '''''scepticism''''' ([[Ancient Greek|Greek:]] ''skeptomai'', to look about, to consider) refers to any [[doctrine]] or way of thought denying the ability of our mind to reach certainty.  
 
In a general sense, '''''skepticism''''' or '''''scepticism''''' ([[Ancient Greek|Greek:]] ''skeptomai'', to look about, to consider) refers to any [[doctrine]] or way of thought denying the ability of our mind to reach certainty.  
  
Originating in the human tendency to question the reliability of any statement before accepting it, skepticism has taken on a variety of forms throughout the ages. It can refer both to an attitude in ordinary life and to [[philosophy|philosophical]] positions. Skepticism is often contrasted with [[dogmatism]], the position that certain truth can be reached by the application of an appropriate method. [[Epistemology]], the inquiry into the conditions for certainty in knowing, has led practically every thinker to adopt, at least temporarily, some form of limited skepticism in one regard or another. And some of the greatest philosophers, such as [[David Hume]], have come to the conclusion that certain knowledge is essentially unattainable. By its very nature, skepticism is unsatisfactory as an end result. Whether it is ultimately embraced or rejected thus depends in great part on one’s general outlook of life, [[pessimism]] being generally associated with the skeptical option. In any case, however, skepticism has played an irreplaceable role as a catalyst in the history of philosophy.  
+
Originating in the human tendency to question the reliability of any statement before accepting it, skepticism has taken on a variety of forms throughout the ages. It can refer both to an attitude in ordinary life and to [[philosophy|philosophical]] positions. Skepticism is often contrasted with [[dogmatism]], the position that certain truth can be reached by the application of an appropriate method. [[Epistemology]], the inquiry into the conditions for certainty in knowing, has led practically every thinker to adopt, at least temporarily, some form of limited skepticism in one regard or another. And some of the greatest philosophers, such as [[David Hume]], have come to the conclusion that certain knowledge is essentially unattainable. By its very nature, skepticism is unsatisfactory as an end result. Whether it is ultimately embraced or rejected thus depends in great part on one’s general outlook of life, [[pessimism]] being generally associated with the skeptical option. In any case, however, skepticism has played an irreplaceable role as a catalyst in the history of philosophy.
  
 
==Fallibilism==
 
==Fallibilism==
Line 16: Line 22:
 
'''Fallibilism''' is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some ''fallibilists'' go further, arguing that absolute certainty about [[knowledge]] is [[impossible]]. As a formal doctrine, it is most strongly associated with [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[John Dewey]], and other [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], who use it in their attacks on [[foundationalism]]. However, it is arguably already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including [[Xenophanes]], [[Socrates]], and [[Plato]]. Another proponent of fallibilism is [[Karl Popper]], who builds his [[theory of knowledge]], [[critical rationalism]], on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism is also been employed by [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] to, among other things, attack the distinction between [[analytic proposition|analytic]] and [[synthetic proposition|synthetic]] statements.
 
'''Fallibilism''' is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some ''fallibilists'' go further, arguing that absolute certainty about [[knowledge]] is [[impossible]]. As a formal doctrine, it is most strongly associated with [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[John Dewey]], and other [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], who use it in their attacks on [[foundationalism]]. However, it is arguably already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including [[Xenophanes]], [[Socrates]], and [[Plato]]. Another proponent of fallibilism is [[Karl Popper]], who builds his [[theory of knowledge]], [[critical rationalism]], on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism is also been employed by [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] to, among other things, attack the distinction between [[analytic proposition|analytic]] and [[synthetic proposition|synthetic]] statements.
  
Unlike [[scepticism]], fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because [[empirical]] knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as [[mathematics|mathematical]] and [[logic|logical]] knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. <!-- The incompleteness theorems are irrelevant AFAICS. Moreover, according to [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]], to find a complete and consistent set of [[axioms]] for all of mathematics is impossible; even mathematics has paradoxes like the [[Barber paradox]].—> The [[critical rationalism|critical rationalist]] [[Hans Albert]] argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the [[Münchhausen Trilemma]].  
+
Unlike [[scepticism]], fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge&mdash;we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because [[empirical]] knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as [[mathematics|mathematical]] and [[logic|logical]] knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. <!-- The incompleteness theorems are irrelevant AFAICS. Moreover, according to [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]], to find a complete and consistent set of [[axioms]] for all of mathematics is impossible; even mathematics has paradoxes like the [[Barber paradox]].—> The [[critical rationalism|critical rationalist]] [[Hans Albert]] argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the [[Münchhausen Trilemma]].  
  
 
===Moral fallibilism===
 
===Moral fallibilism===
 
Moral fallibilism is a specific subset of the broader [[epistemology|epistemological]] fallibilism outlined above. In the debate between moral [[Moral_objectivism|subjectivism]] and moral [[moral objectivism|objectivism]], moral fallibilism holds out a third plausible stance: that objectively true [[moral]] standards exist, but that they cannot be reliably or conclusively determined by humans. This avoids the problems associated with the flexibility of subjectivism by retaining the idea that morality is not a matter of mere opinion, whilst accounting for the conflict between differing objective moralities. Notable proponents of such views are [[Isaiah Berlin]] ([[value pluralism]]) and [[Bernard Williams]] ([[perspectivism]]).
 
Moral fallibilism is a specific subset of the broader [[epistemology|epistemological]] fallibilism outlined above. In the debate between moral [[Moral_objectivism|subjectivism]] and moral [[moral objectivism|objectivism]], moral fallibilism holds out a third plausible stance: that objectively true [[moral]] standards exist, but that they cannot be reliably or conclusively determined by humans. This avoids the problems associated with the flexibility of subjectivism by retaining the idea that morality is not a matter of mere opinion, whilst accounting for the conflict between differing objective moralities. Notable proponents of such views are [[Isaiah Berlin]] ([[value pluralism]]) and [[Bernard Williams]] ([[perspectivism]]).
  
==[[Methodic doubt]]==
+
==Münchhausen-Trilemma==
(see main article [[Methodic doubt]] and [[Descartes]])
+
The '''Münchhausen-Trilemma''', also called '''Agrippa's Trilemma''' (after the [[Agrippa the Skeptic|eponymous Greek Skeptic]]), is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any ''certain'' [[truth]] even in the fields of [[logic]] and [[mathematics]]. It is the name of an argument in the [[epistemology|theory of knowledge]] going back to the German philosopher [[Hans Albert]], and, more traditionally, to the [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptic]] Agrippa. The concept is referred by both [[skepticism|skeptics]] and fallibilists.
  
'''Methodic doubt''' ("'''Hyperbolic doubt'''") is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in [[philosophy]]. This method of doubt was largely popularized in the field of philosophy by [[René Descartes]] (1596-1650), who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.
+
The term is ironically named after [[Baron Münchhausen]], who allegedly pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair.
  
[[Edmund Husserl]], a founder of [[phenomenology]], also used methodic doubt, in his early works, to find out the indubitable ground in philosophy. He later gave up this Cartesian path and developed phenomenology of [[life world]] which encompasses a broader social, cultural, and historical relations of human [[existence]].
+
These [[Trope (philosophy)|tropes]] are given by [[Sextus Empiricus]], in his ''Outlines of Pyrrhonism''. According to Sextus, they are attributed only "to the more recent skeptics" and it is by [[Diogenes Laertius]] that we attribute them to Agrippa.<ref name="diog1">Diogenes Laërtius, ix.</ref> The tropes are:
 +
 +
# '''Dissent''' - The uncertainty of the rules of common life, and of the opinions of philosophers.
 +
# '''Progress [[ad infinitum]]''' - All proof requires some further proof, and so on to infinity.
 +
# '''Relation''' - All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
 +
# '''Assumption''' - The truth asserted is merely an hypothesis.
 +
# '''[[Circularity]]''' - The truth asserted involves a vicious circle (see [[regress argument]], known in [[scholasticism]] as diallelus).
  
== Religion==
+
With reference to these five tropes, that the first and third are a short summary of the ten original grounds of doubt which were the basis of the earlier skepticism.<ref name="diog1"/> The three additional ones show a progress in the skeptical system, and a transition from the common objections derived from the fallibility of sense and opinion, to more abstract and metaphysical grounds of doubt.
  
Anything that is questionable or causes doubt, especially an argument or a claim.{{Clarifyme}} <!-- (The intended meaning of the previous sentence fragment is incomplete and possibly unclear.) —>
+
==[[Methodic doubt]]==
  
Branches of philosophy like [[logic]] devote much effort to distinguish the dubious, the [[probability| probable]] and the certain. Much of illogic rests on dubious assumptions, dubious data or dubious conclusions, with [[rhetoric]], [[whitewash (censorship)|whitewashing]], and [[deception]] playing their accustomed roles.
+
'''Methodic doubt''' ("'''Hyperbolic doubt'''") is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in [[philosophy]]. This method of doubt was largely popularized in the field of philosophy by [[René Descartes]] (1596-1650), who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.
  
=== Religion ===
+
[[Edmund Husserl]], a founder of [[phenomenology]], also used methodic doubt, in his early works, to find out the indubitable ground in philosophy. He later gave up this Cartesian path and developed phenomenology of [[life world]] which encompasses a broader social, cultural, and historical relations of human [[existence]].
 
 
[[Image:Caravaggio - The Incredulity of Saint Thomas.jpg|thumb|350px|''[[Doubting Thomas|The Incredulity of Saint Thomas]]'' by [[Caravaggio]].]]
 
 
 
Doubt that god(s) exist forms the basis of [[agnosticism]]—possibly definable as the belief that one cannot determine the existence of god(s)—and [[atheism]], which can entail either not believing in god(s) or believing that no god(s) exist(s).
 
 
 
By extension, doubt as to the existence or intentions of the [[Christian God]] applies to doubt concerning the [[Christian Bible]] as well, bringing into question its alleged status as the [[religious text| word of God]], and propounding alternative explanations (such as a work of [[mythology]] like [[Homer]]'s ancient Greek epics the ''[[Iliad]]'' and the ''[[Odyssey]]''). Doubt of a religion itself brings into question the truth of its set of beliefs. Alternatively, doubt as to some doctrines but the acceptance of others may lead to the growth of [[heresy]] and/or the splitting off of [[sect]]s. Thus proto-[[Protestanism|Protestants]] doubted [[papal authority]], and substituted alternative methods of governance in their new (but still recognizably Christian) churches.
 
 
 
[[Christianity| Christian]]s{{who?}} often debate doubt in the contexts of [[salvation]] and eventual redemption in an [[afterlife]]. This issue has become particularly important in the [[Protestant]] version of the Christian faith, which requires ''only'' acceptance of [[Jesus]] as [[saviour]] and intermediary with [[God]] for a [[soteriology| positive outcome]]. The debate appears less important in most other [[religion]]s and [[ethical tradition]]s.
 
 
 
=== Spirituality ===
 
 
 
In the context of [[spirituality]], individuals may{{Or|date=May 2008}} see doubt as the opposite of [[faith]]. If faith represents a compulsion to follow a path, doubt may succeed in blocking that particular path.{{Fact|date=February 2008}}  People{{who?}} use doubts and faith every day to [[choice| choose]] the [[life path]] that they follow{{Fact|date=August 2008}}; for example: "I doubt that laziness will help me achieve my goals."
 
 
 
Doubt can serve to create individual [[illusion]]s to shield the [[vision]] of an unpleasant outcome. "I doubt anyone will catch me if I rob this store."  Depending upon the energy put into the doubt, when used in this way, doubt itself may have little impact on events, merely blocking the individual from seeing [[possibility| possibilities]].{{Fact|date=August 2008}}
 
 
 
== Psychology ==
 
  
[[Psychoanalysts]]{{who?}} often{{weasel-inline}} attribute doubt (which they may interpret as a symptom of a [[phobia]] emanating from the [[ego]]) to [[childhood]], when the ego develops. Childhood experiences, these traditions maintain, can plant doubt about one's abilities and even about one's very [[identity]]—let alone doubt about the operations of the [[tooth fairy]]. The influence of parents and other influential figures often carries heavy connotations onto the resultant [[self-image]] of the child/[[Ego, super-ego, and id|ego]], with doubts often included in such self-portrayals.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
+
== Religious [[faith]] and doubt==
 +
[[Image:Caravaggio - The Incredulity of Saint Thomas.jpg|thumb|350px|''[[Doubting Thomas|The Incredulity of Saint Thomas]]'' by [[Caravaggio]]]]
  
[[Cognitive]] mental as well as more [[spirituality|spiritual]] approaches abound in response to the wide variety of potential causes for doubt—sometimes seen as a "[[Bad Thing]]." [[Behavioral therapy]]—in which a person systematically asks his own [[mind]] if the doubt has any real basis—uses rational, [[Socratic method]]s. Behavioral therapists claim that any constant confirmation leads to emotional detachment from the original doubt.{{Fact|date=February 2008}} This method contrasts to those of say, the [[Buddhist]] faith, which involve a more [[esoteric]] approach to doubt and inaction. Buddhism sees all{{Fact|date=February 2008}} doubt as a negative attachment to one's perceived [[past]] and [[future]]. To let go of the personal [[history]] of one's life (affirming this release every day in [[meditation]]) plays a central role in releasing the doubts—developed in and attached to—that history. Through much spiritual exertion, one can (if desired) dispel doubt, and live "only in the present".{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
+
In the context of [[spirituality]], individuals may see doubt as the opposite of [[faith]]. If faith represents a compulsion to follow a path, doubt may succeed in blocking that particular path. People use doubts and faith every day to [[choice| choose]] the life path that they follow. Questions of what, how, and why one believes or is certain about certain claims or doctrines are one of essential subjects in the [[philosophy of religion]]. Epistemic conditions of validation of knowledge, the roles of [[reason]], [[experience]], and [[revelation]] in establishing religious faith are complex issues in [[theology]] and religious philosophy.
  
=== Psychopathology===
+
As for the [[existence of God]], three primary positions are possible: [[theism]], [[atheism]], and [[agnosticism]]. Theists believe the existence of God and atheists believe God does not exist. Agnosticism is a position that one cannot determine the existence of God.
  
Many people{{who?}} associate "excessive" doubt  with [[obsessive-compulsive disorder]], sometimes nicknamed a "disease of doubt."
+
==Law: "beyond a reasonable doubt" ==
==Law==
 
 
'''Beyond a reasonable doubt''' is the standard required by the prosecution in most [[criminal law|criminal]] cases within an [[adversarial system]], also called the "[[Burden of Proof|Burden of Proof]]." This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a [[reasonable person]] that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would ''not'' affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised ''does'' affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt." The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within [[jurisprudence]] of the applicable country.
 
'''Beyond a reasonable doubt''' is the standard required by the prosecution in most [[criminal law|criminal]] cases within an [[adversarial system]], also called the "[[Burden of Proof|Burden of Proof]]." This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a [[reasonable person]] that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would ''not'' affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised ''does'' affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt." The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within [[jurisprudence]] of the applicable country.
== Impact on society ==
 
  
 
Doubt sometimes tends to call on [[reason]]. It may encourage people to [[procrastination|hesitate]] before acting, and/or to apply more [[rigour|rigorous]] methods. Doubt may have particular importance as leading towards disbelief or non-acceptance.
 
Doubt sometimes tends to call on [[reason]]. It may encourage people to [[procrastination|hesitate]] before acting, and/or to apply more [[rigour|rigorous]] methods. Doubt may have particular importance as leading towards disbelief or non-acceptance.
  
 
[[Politics]], [[ethics]] and [[law]], faced with decisions that often determine the course of individual [[personal life| life]], place great importance on doubt, and often foster elaborate [[adversarial process]]es to carefully sort through all the evidence in an attempt to come to a [[decision]].
 
[[Politics]], [[ethics]] and [[law]], faced with decisions that often determine the course of individual [[personal life| life]], place great importance on doubt, and often foster elaborate [[adversarial process]]es to carefully sort through all the evidence in an attempt to come to a [[decision]].
 
One view regards the [[scientific method]], and to a degree all of [[science]], as entirely motivated by doubt: rather than accepting existing [[theory| theories]], scientists express systematic or [[Habit (psychology)| habitual]] doubt ([[skepticism]]) and devise [[experiment]]s to test (and, optimally, to disprove) any theory. Some commentators {{who?}} see [[technology]] as simply the expansion of the experiments to a wider user-base, which takes real [[risk]]s{{Fact|date=February 2008}} with it. Users may no longer doubt the applicability of the theory in play, but there remain doubts about how it interacts with the real world ''qua'' whole. The process of [[technology transfer| technology-transfer]] stages exploitation of science to ensure the minimization of doubt and danger.
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
 
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
{{wiktionarypar|doubt|dubious}}
 
{{wiktionarypar|doubt|dubious}}
 
{{commons|Category:Doubt|Doubt}}
 
{{commons|Category:Doubt|Doubt}}
 +
* [[Belief and certainty]]
 +
* [[Charles Peirce]]
 +
* [[Descartes]]
 +
* [[Faith]]
 
* [[Methodic doubt]]
 
* [[Methodic doubt]]
* [[Descartes]]
 
* [[Charles Peirce]]
 
* [[satire]] may arouse doubts
 
 
* [[skepticism]]
 
* [[skepticism]]
* [[Belief and certainty]]
+
 
 +
==Notes==
 +
<references/>
  
 
== References==
 
== References==
*Descartes, René. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. In Cottingham, et al. (eds.), 1984.
+
*Abernethy, Bob, and William Bole. ''The Life of Meaning: Reflections on Faith, Doubt, and Repairing the World.'' New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1583227589
* {{cite book
+
*Broughton, Janet. ''Descartes's Method of Doubt.'' Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0691088181
|last=Hecht
+
*Danto, Arthur Coleman.'' Connections to the World: The Basic Concepts of Philosophy.'' New York: Harper & Row, 1989. ISBN 978-0060159603
|first=Jennifer Michael
+
*Descartes, René, and John Cottingham. ''Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies.'' Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 978-0521338578
|authorlink=Jennifer Michael Hecht
+
*Hecht, Jennifer Michael. ''Doubt: A History: the Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation, from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson.'' San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 978-0060097721
|title=Doubt: a history: the great doubters and their legacy of innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson
+
*Hiley, David R. ''Doubt and the Demands of Democratic Citizenship.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0521684514
|year= 2003
+
*Novak, Michael. ''Belief and Unbelief; A Philosophy of Self-Knowledge.'' New York: Macmillan, 1965.
|month=
+
*O'Connell, Robert J. ''William James on the Courage to Believe.'' American philosophy series, no. 8. New York: Fordham University Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0585171340
|publisher= HarperSanFrancisco
+
*Peirce, Charles S., and Justus Buchler. ''Philosophy: Selected Writings.'' New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950.
|location= San Francisco
+
*Peirce, Charles S. ''Philosophical Writings of Peirce.'' New York: Dover Publications, 1940.
|isbn= 0-06-009795-7
+
*Popkin, Richard H., and José Raimundo Maia Neto. ''Skepticism: An Anthology.'' Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. ISBN 978-1591024743
}} This book traces the role of doubt through human history, all over the world, particularly regarding religion.
+
*Schellenberg, J. L. ''The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism.'' Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0801445545
* Hein, David (Winter 2006). "Faith and Doubt in Rose Macaulay's ''[[The Towers of Trebizond]]''." ''Anglican Theological Review'' 88 (1): 47-68. ISSN 0003-3286.
+
*Schofield, Malcolm, Myles Burnyeat, and Jonathan Barnes. ''Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0198246015
*''Charles S. Peirce: Selected Writings'', ed. by Philip P. Wiener (Dover, 1980)
+
*Sextus. ''Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I.'' Great Books Foundation series. Chicago: Regnery, 1949.
*''Charles S. Peirce and the Philosophy of Science'', ed. by Edward C. Moore (Alabama, 1993)
+
 
*''Traktat über kritische Vernunft'', Hans Albert (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. 5<sup>th</sup> ed. 1991)
+
==External links==
 +
All links retrieved January 30, 2024.
 +
 
 +
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm Doubt], Catholic Encyclopedia.
 +
* Rene Descartes. [http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/9.htm Meditations on First Philosophy, MEDITATION VI]
 +
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:
 +
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/ Certainty]
 +
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ Descartes’ Epistemology]
 +
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/ Skepticism]
  
{{credits|Doubt|235068716|Fallibilism|233815884|Skepticism|234893531|Reasonable_doubt|234841940}}
+
[[category:philosophy and religion]]
 +
{{credits|Doubt|235068716|Fallibilism|233815884|Skepticism|234893531|Reasonable_doubt|234841940|Münchhausen_Trilemma|228547468}}

Latest revision as of 17:30, 30 January 2024

Doubt, a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty, distrust, or lack of sureness of an alleged fact, an action, motive, or a decision. Doubt may involve delaying or rejecting relevant actions. Human beings generally live with beliefs in various degrees of certainty. Doubt can play a positive role that leads one to critical examination or reflection in order to discern truth from falsity. Doubt of conventional beliefs or a framework of thought can also open up new insights and paradigms of thought. Thus, reasonable levels of doubt is important for human thought and critical thinking.

Skepticism is a philosophical position which denies some epistemic conditions necessary to attain certainty of knowledge. While skepticism denies the possibility of attaining certainty in knowledge, fallibilism does not hold such a universal claim. It rather reserves the logical possibility of having mistaken beliefs in knowledge and takes a critical stance toward any form of dogmatism.

Rene Descartes used doubt as a philosophical method in his thought experiment to discover the indubitable principle. A well known phrase Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") is the point he reached through his methodic doubt, which properly means "I certainly exist as far as I doubt." Thus, doubt itself presupposes the certainly of the existence of the thinking self. Husserl also used this method in his early works to establish phenomenology.

Doubt and critical thinking

A human being lives with various kinds of beliefs. The degree of certainty varies according to issues, subjects, and items. Some beliefs are highly probable and some are questionable. A human being has the capacity to critically examine the validity of a given idea. Doubt thus has a critical function to suspend one from taking an immediate belief stance and discern truth. Without this critical function of doubt, human beings can be trapped with all kinds of false beliefs, knowledge, and misinformation.

Key philosophers in the history of philosophy cast doubt on the prevailing thought of his or her time, and presented radically new ways of thinking. This progress of thought takes place by thinkers' radical renewal of existing paradigms.

Skepticism

In a general sense, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider) refers to any doctrine or way of thought denying the ability of our mind to reach certainty.

Originating in the human tendency to question the reliability of any statement before accepting it, skepticism has taken on a variety of forms throughout the ages. It can refer both to an attitude in ordinary life and to philosophical positions. Skepticism is often contrasted with dogmatism, the position that certain truth can be reached by the application of an appropriate method. Epistemology, the inquiry into the conditions for certainty in knowing, has led practically every thinker to adopt, at least temporarily, some form of limited skepticism in one regard or another. And some of the greatest philosophers, such as David Hume, have come to the conclusion that certain knowledge is essentially unattainable. By its very nature, skepticism is unsatisfactory as an end result. Whether it is ultimately embraced or rejected thus depends in great part on one’s general outlook of life, pessimism being generally associated with the skeptical option. In any case, however, skepticism has played an irreplaceable role as a catalyst in the history of philosophy.

Fallibilism

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on foundationalism. However, it is arguably already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato. Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism is also been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to, among other things, attack the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.

Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge—we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen Trilemma.

Moral fallibilism

Moral fallibilism is a specific subset of the broader epistemological fallibilism outlined above. In the debate between moral subjectivism and moral objectivism, moral fallibilism holds out a third plausible stance: that objectively true moral standards exist, but that they cannot be reliably or conclusively determined by humans. This avoids the problems associated with the flexibility of subjectivism by retaining the idea that morality is not a matter of mere opinion, whilst accounting for the conflict between differing objective moralities. Notable proponents of such views are Isaiah Berlin (value pluralism) and Bernard Williams (perspectivism).

Münchhausen-Trilemma

The Münchhausen-Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma (after the eponymous Greek Skeptic), is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any certain truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. It is the name of an argument in the theory of knowledge going back to the German philosopher Hans Albert, and, more traditionally, to the skeptic Agrippa. The concept is referred by both skeptics and fallibilists.

The term is ironically named after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair.

These tropes are given by Sextus Empiricus, in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism. According to Sextus, they are attributed only "to the more recent skeptics" and it is by Diogenes Laertius that we attribute them to Agrippa.[1] The tropes are:

  1. Dissent - The uncertainty of the rules of common life, and of the opinions of philosophers.
  2. Progress ad infinitum - All proof requires some further proof, and so on to infinity.
  3. Relation - All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
  4. Assumption - The truth asserted is merely an hypothesis.
  5. Circularity - The truth asserted involves a vicious circle (see regress argument, known in scholasticism as diallelus).

With reference to these five tropes, that the first and third are a short summary of the ten original grounds of doubt which were the basis of the earlier skepticism.[1] The three additional ones show a progress in the skeptical system, and a transition from the common objections derived from the fallibility of sense and opinion, to more abstract and metaphysical grounds of doubt.

Methodic doubt

Methodic doubt ("Hyperbolic doubt") is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. This method of doubt was largely popularized in the field of philosophy by René Descartes (1596-1650), who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.

Edmund Husserl, a founder of phenomenology, also used methodic doubt, in his early works, to find out the indubitable ground in philosophy. He later gave up this Cartesian path and developed phenomenology of life world which encompasses a broader social, cultural, and historical relations of human existence.

Religious faith and doubt

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio

In the context of spirituality, individuals may see doubt as the opposite of faith. If faith represents a compulsion to follow a path, doubt may succeed in blocking that particular path. People use doubts and faith every day to choose the life path that they follow. Questions of what, how, and why one believes or is certain about certain claims or doctrines are one of essential subjects in the philosophy of religion. Epistemic conditions of validation of knowledge, the roles of reason, experience, and revelation in establishing religious faith are complex issues in theology and religious philosophy.

As for the existence of God, three primary positions are possible: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Theists believe the existence of God and atheists believe God does not exist. Agnosticism is a position that one cannot determine the existence of God.

Law: "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system, also called the "Burden of Proof." This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt." The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.

Doubt sometimes tends to call on reason. It may encourage people to hesitate before acting, and/or to apply more rigorous methods. Doubt may have particular importance as leading towards disbelief or non-acceptance.

Politics, ethics and law, faced with decisions that often determine the course of individual life, place great importance on doubt, and often foster elaborate adversarial processes to carefully sort through all the evidence in an attempt to come to a decision.

See also

Wikiquote-logo-en.png
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Commons
Wikimedia Commons has media related to::

Notes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Diogenes Laërtius, ix.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Abernethy, Bob, and William Bole. The Life of Meaning: Reflections on Faith, Doubt, and Repairing the World. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1583227589
  • Broughton, Janet. Descartes's Method of Doubt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0691088181
  • Danto, Arthur Coleman. Connections to the World: The Basic Concepts of Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. ISBN 978-0060159603
  • Descartes, René, and John Cottingham. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 978-0521338578
  • Hecht, Jennifer Michael. Doubt: A History: the Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation, from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 978-0060097721
  • Hiley, David R. Doubt and the Demands of Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0521684514
  • Novak, Michael. Belief and Unbelief; A Philosophy of Self-Knowledge. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
  • O'Connell, Robert J. William James on the Courage to Believe. American philosophy series, no. 8. New York: Fordham University Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0585171340
  • Peirce, Charles S., and Justus Buchler. Philosophy: Selected Writings. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950.
  • Peirce, Charles S. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications, 1940.
  • Popkin, Richard H., and José Raimundo Maia Neto. Skepticism: An Anthology. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. ISBN 978-1591024743
  • Schellenberg, J. L. The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0801445545
  • Schofield, Malcolm, Myles Burnyeat, and Jonathan Barnes. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0198246015
  • Sextus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I. Great Books Foundation series. Chicago: Regnery, 1949.

External links

All links retrieved January 30, 2024.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.