The Academic Skeptics were philosophers who modeled themselves on Socrates and his method of questioning.\u00a0 When the Delphic Oracle reported that no one was wiser than him, Socrates reasoned that whatever wisdom he had was to be found in his recognizing that he does not know many important things.\u00a0 And so he does not pronounce on those things or take himself to be an expert on things he is not. Plato memorialized Socrates\u2019 methods of revealing ignorance in his dialogues, and in the Academy he founded, those methods were further developed (along with other strategies for establishing knowledge).\u00a0 Two later heads of the Academy, Arcesilaus and Carneades, brought these critical Socratic methods to the fore. And with this, they inaugurated a skeptical Academy.<\/p>\n
The primary Academic method is opposing arguments with others, setting them in dialectical opposition.\u00a0 And so, to Stoic claims that there are kataleptic<\/em> impressions (impressions that are true and could not be like any false impression), the Academics argued for a variety of indiscernibility cases (dreams, madness, deception by the gods, twins, and so on).\u00a0 And to the Epicurean claim that all sense impressions are true, the Academics proposed a variety of variance cases (bent oars in water, things that look fuzzy when far away, the difference between people\u2019s perceptions).\u00a0 This strategy generalizes so that for any domain of dispute, reasons for and against can be marshalled, and the arguments and counter-arguments may be many levels deep.\u00a0 Cicero\u2019s philosophical dialogues are exemplary of this method \u2013 learned representatives of a variety of views arrange their arguments and have substantive exchanges.\u00a0 To each argument, there is a counter-argument.<\/p>\n This method of arguing pro-and-con for the issues of import, and in particular mastering the arguments of one\u2019s opposition, was not a mere rhetorical exercise or gesture of contrariety.\u00a0 Instead, the Academics, and Cicero in particular, saw it as a method of inquiry.\u00a0 In the Tusculan Disputations<\/em>, Cicero explains that it is not for the sake of being merely disputatious that Academics oppose all arguments, but for the sake of identifying what\u2019s worth believing, what resembles the truth once all the considerations are aired (1.8).\u00a0 Arguing against every position, even the ones you hold dear, is the best way to understand the issue, to manage one\u2019s orientation toward what the dispute is about.\u00a0 Knowing and being able to state the best and most challenging objections to and compelling reasons for not only your view but the relevant competitors is the objective.<\/p>\n This is a familiar aspiration, as it is championed later (and famously) by J. S. Mill, but there is a unique procedural rule the Academics remind us to follow.\u00a0 It is stated by Cicero as \u201cit is unfair, in critique, to omit to mention the advantages of the view or institution in question, but enumerate only disadvantages and particular shortcomings\u201d (On the Laws<\/em> 3.23).\u00a0 The rule is that in arguing pro-contra, we must resist the temptation of comparing the vices of one view with the virtues of its competitor.\u00a0 Instead, we must compare the virtues and virtues, the vices and vices.\u00a0 Think of so many critical exchanges wherein a favored view receives from one side attention only on its positive features, and the competing view only on the negative.\u00a0 This is a rigged game \u2013 instead, we must deliberate between the advantages and drawbacks aligned.\u00a0 In this way, when we compare views, when we choose what looks like the most promising proposal, when we look for the most plausible option, we do so with our eyes open about the comparative virtues and drawbacks alike for all the views.\u00a0 We do this with the procedural rule: compare virtues to virtues, vices to vices.<\/p>\n Skepticism, generally, has its costs as a philosophical program, and Academic skepticism has them in bundles. The primary cost is that after the procedure of comparison, one\u2019s beliefs are regularly shaken.\u00a0 One does not have the confidence one originally had.\u00a0 And consequently, one may not act as confidently as one had before.\u00a0 Philosophy affects your life, and the complaint is that skepticism shuts one\u2019s life down.\u00a0 It may be a theoretically exemplary program, but skepticism, as the objection goes, is practically disastrous.<\/p>\n The Academics were keenly aware of this challenge, and they had two ready replies.\u00a0 The first was that this method may put knowledge and the confidence that comes with taking oneself to know out of our reach, but it puts us in a position of understanding, which, though not the primary intellectual good, is a good of consequence.\u00a0 In fact, skepticism, when seen properly, is a kind of intellectual achievement, instead of failure \u2013 one has a command of the issue that most disputants don\u2019t have. That\u2019s not nothing, and most skeptics agreed with Socrates that wisdom resides there.<\/p>\n The second reply is that the method of arguing pro-contra and the rule of comparison do not guarantee that all debates will yield perfect stalemate between the two (or more) sides. One side may have a slight dialectical advantage in one area or another.\u00a0 The initial plausibility of a view may be undercut by the objections against it, but it may have the least objectionable problems of the competitors.\u00a0 Or a view may remain appealing despite all the problems one must manage to maintain it.\u00a0 That\u2019s possible as an outcome, and in fact a regular result of many exchanges has this feature.\u00a0 We may emerge from these exchanges with the commitments we began them with, but our relationship with them has changed \u2013 we can see them as flawed, but improvable, commitments, ones that are worth sticking with for now.\u00a0 Cicero, himself, despite identifying as an Academic skeptic, regularly sides with the Stoics after these exchanges. Most famously, he offers an endorsement of Stoic theology after its significant critique at the end of On the Nature of the Gods<\/em>. \u00a0The intellectual modesty promoted by the skeptical methods does not preclude commitment, but it does restrict that commitment to something tentative and revisable. The Academics had a procedure for running debates, comparing criticisms and support for views, and ultimately making judgments.\u00a0 What was necessary, of course, was freedom for representatives of those views to voice them and the freedom for those assessing the state of dialectical play at the end to judge as they saw fit.<\/p>\n Skepticism is regularly portrayed as a kind of intellectual poison, something that destroys inquiry and action.\u00a0 The Academics and their method provide a model for inquiry and judgment, but it requires that we accept that our beliefs may not survive critical reflection. \u00a0That\u2019s unpleasant medicine, for sure, but it is a far cry from poison.<\/p>\n Photo: Greek Hero by Scott F. Aikin<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Academic Skeptics were philosophers who modeled themselves on Socrates and his method of questioning.\u00a0 When the Delphic Oracle reported that no one was wiser than him, Socrates reasoned that […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":711,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Putting Academic Skepticism to Work a new post by Scott F. Aikin on how a model for inquiry in Open for debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[60,189],"custom_author":[169],"class_list":["post-709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-argumentation","tag-skepticism","custom_author-aikin-scott-f"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-br","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":880,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/skepticism-tribalism-and-humble-persistence\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":0},"title":"Skepticism, Tribalism, and Humble Persistence","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"With many weighty contemporary issues, it is increasingly difficult to know what exactly to believe. This includes issues related to or at the intersection of politics, morality, religion, medicine, and science. Information about these issues is endless. It points in different and inconsistent directions. And its quality can be extremely\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/Imagefor-Baehr-post-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1793,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/semmelweis-socratic-ignorance-and-listening-in-an-unjust-world\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":1},"title":"Semmelweis, Socratic Ignorance and Listening in an Unjust World","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Ignaz Semmelweis, a physician working in a charity hospital in Vienna in the mid 19th century, faced a tragic puzzle: he saw that the rates of puerperal (childbed) fever and consequent deaths were much higher among women who gave birth on the ward led by physicians than on the midwives\u2019\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/Question_mark.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/Question_mark.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/Question_mark.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/Question_mark.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":419,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/reflections-on-transcribing-multimodal-texts\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":2},"title":"Reflections on Transcribing Multimodal Texts","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Since the election of Donald Trump in 2017 the media has often seemed to be in a continual state of shock at the brusque manner of the forty-fifth president\u2019s speech. During the summer of 2017 I conducted a research project into transcription methods for multimodal discourse, contributing to the Changing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/03\/4244624289_70b27dc8a6_z.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1738,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-type-of-deference-to-science-do-we-owe-each-other\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":3},"title":"What type of deference to science do we owe each other?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"How should the public respond to science communication, and how can science be communicated in a way that promotes such a response? A combination of philosophical and empirical research may provide some answers. A scientifically informed public is an important dimension of deliberative democracy. More specifically, grand societal challenges, such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/07\/Lappland-8-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1581,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/red-pills-and-rallying-lies-conspiracy-theories-skepticism-and-collective-action\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":4},"title":"Red Pills and Rallying Lies: Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Collective Action","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMost of the things that we take to be a fact in our lives are told to us through our stories, or the news that we hear. So, my question would be: if they were deceiving you with the stories they tell you, would you be able to recognize that?\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":575,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/academic-participation-in-social-movements-a-call-for-ethical-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":709,"position":5},"title":"Academic participation in social movements: A call for ethical review","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 31, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"I\u2019ve been an academic for some 35 years. Since 1991, I have been a (first assistant, then associate, then full) professor at Georgetown University in the philosophy department and since 1996 the program on justice and peace. For roughly the same number of years, I have been actively involved in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=709"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":715,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709\/revisions\/715"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/711"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=709"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}