My Methodological Skepticism Style, Part of My Methodological Rationalism
“Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.”
I am going to give a quick and clear expression of my methodological skepticism style. It is more like critical thinking then just some act of doubt, which can be summed up as pausing when any thought is offered, ether by oneself and/or others. I mainly advocate for fallibilism (realizing that humans tend to error and lack accuracy) instead of the falsification skeptics seem to like; I also may rely on the axiomatic arguments, which rests on accepted precepts. Broadly speaking, Fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, “liable to err”) is the philosophical claim that no belief is free from the possibility to be in error or lacking in accuracy, knowledge does not require anything more than epistemic certainty and I believe that extends to all domains of knowledge. Roughly characterized, a belief is epistemically certain when it has the highest possible epistemic status. Epistemic certainty is the full confidence that the epistemic position offered has warrants often accompanied by psychological certainty, but it need not be. It is possible that a subject may have a belief that enjoys the highest possible epistemic status and yet be unaware that it does. In such a case, the subject may feel less than the full confidence that her epistemic position warrants.
Questions should be asked as to how any knowledge claim is “known” or thought to be true. Proof is needed to be provide the understanding of the thinking’s, reasoning’s or belief’s “knowledge representation” which is then questioned, defined, and explored. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. This may also be applied to weaker notions than knowledge; Things that are not (fully) justified, Things that are “probably true”, and Things that are “true most of the time.”
Then to manage these questions one employs my “Hammer of Truth” which is three philosophic categories of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology to add accuracy in thinking, reasoning and believing. Ontology (What), Epistemology (How) and Axiology (why) questions debate/challenge philosophy tools so people easily learn how to use Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.
Thus, when one employs my “Hammer of Truth”, they can use the three categories of specific philosophic questions requiring precise philosophic answers with the aim of helping in this error removing and accuracy building endeavor.
*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.
*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.
*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.
To understand what is being offered using My Methodological Rationalism’s “Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions debate/challenge philosophy tools gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”
Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.
Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.
“The Hammer of Truth” is the use of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. It is also my folk name for Scientific Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology”
Questions to Ponder or Pose:
*What is being offered (a good Ontology answer is needed; or understanding the “what” of the thing in question or what is the level of accuracy or understanding of “what” is being transmitted).
* How Do you know that (a good Epistemology answer is needed; or understanding the “how” of the way, manner or by what means is the justification, warrant and/or support reached needing valid and reliable reason and evidence for what is being offered.
*Why Do You think what is being offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process” (a good Axiological answer is needed; or understanding the “why” of what is being offered is valuable, worthwhile, good, accurate, valid, and reliable reason and evidence for what is being offered.
Then one should use My Methodological Rationalism’s three belief stages for understanding or testing or updating the thinking, reasoning or belief(s) of what is being offered or its “knowledge representation” (exposing the breaking down of the different positions of beliefs or thinking or reasoning, etc. into “good belief etiquette” units assisting in evaluation and action of what is epistemically warranted as rational or that follows epistemic rationality. epistemic rationality can be thought to involve critical thinking about epistemology and the process of forming beliefs that as accurately as possible match the reality of the natural world which is current to the evidence available and only forming beliefs after rational consideration motivated by truth-conducive beliefs, constantly making reasonable efforts to avoid fallacious reasoning and always being open too new or more reality accurate reason or evidence.
Then to expose an account of belief, one should use a Belief acquisition questioning, Belief maintenance rechecking, and Belief retention updating any and all thinking, reason, and or beliefs to ensure full confidence that the epistemic position being offered has epistemic warrant or that follows epistemic rationality. Broadly, “epistemic” means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means; critical study of knowledge, validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge.
“According to many analytic philosophers, a belief is a “propositional attitude”: as a proposition, it has a specific meaning that can be expressed in the form of a sentence; as an attitude, it involves a mental stance on the validity of the proposition (Schwitzgebel, 2010). Beliefs thus involve at least two properties: (i) representational content and (ii) assumed veracity (Stephens and Graham, 2004). It is important to note, however, that beliefs need not be conscious or linguistically articulated. It is likely that the majority of beliefs remain unconscious or outside of immediate awareness, and are of relatively mundane content: for example, that one’s senses reveal an environment that is physically real, that one has ongoing relationships with other people, and that one’s actions in the present can bring about outcomes in the future. Beliefs thus typically describe enduring, unquestioned ontological representations of the world and comprise primary convictions about events, causes, agency, and objects that subjects use and accept as veridical.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/
In general, I do not care that much what others believe personally until they say it is true, ask my opinion, challenge my evidence, thinking, or beliefs, or use their beliefs to hurt, oppress, or discriminate against others or me. Often, the problem with what is labeled as personal religious belief never stays personal. It becomes a mission to spread (sometimes by force) that same religious belief as an innate factor of the belief itself. Commonly, this seems then to lead to the promotion of dogmatic magical thinking propaganda that tends to motivate beliefs with little problems in hurting, oppressing, or discriminating against others who reject the personal religious belief of the religionist, theist, or fideist. This practice of supposedly personal belief is most commonly forced on to children which shows that there is little personal about it. As for me, I do openly express my atheism, antitheism, antireligionism, and secular humanism but this is not some limiting dogmatism as I strive to be open to learn new things, if warranted and express my thinking or beliefs with justification as much as possible by utilizing valid and reliable reason as well as evidence.