Is strong Skepticism self refuting?

Can we know ANYTHING? A meaningless question until we can adequately define what is "knowing" and what are "we." It's my impression that what we seek is satisfactory answers to questions. Sometimes the questions are metaphysical in nature (requiring "proofs" of a formal nature) and other times they are pragmatic (requiring desired results). Scientific knowledge combine the two. At bottom, however, knowledge (or the state/action of knowing) is a function of the knower.
Fresco, where are you?

Is strong Skepticism self refuting? I doubt it!

Can you give any reason why you doubt it?

Let me guide this question a little further then - strong Cartesian notion of 'knowing' - Certainty beyond a doubt - clear and distinct knowledge.

Us - the entity that thinks - I think any other definition would be superflous than what is needed.

- Also I think nickfun was joking.

TF

Um...I was just being skeptical.

Same thing right?

TF

In answer to the initial question, not the way you've defined it. I think the argument comes down to a semantic level. Kind of like "If God is sinless and allpowerful, does he have the power to sin? The answer all depends on how you define your terms. I think it is the same with your question.

To have "certainty beyond a doubt" may be to be delusional. Is there an entity that thinks or is there just thinking and having the thought that thinking must have an agent?
I agree that all this is superfluous, given your goal. But we should never think that we have rearched rock bottom. That was the problem with Decartes. We just go as far as our purposes require. Pragmatism.

I can see your point JL - as Peirce extrapolated upon - I can also see his argument that we can never be sure we are a thinking being - and that we can only claim we are a thinking 'thing' - but I am not sure how we cannot be absolutley sure that we are thinking - this seems - despite definitions certain knowledge.

How could what I define or how I define it change the fact that if I am wrong - and am still a thing thinking and nothing cannot be wrong?

I guess I just don't understand the refutation here. I can stay with Pierce and other pragmatists in how we often use our knowledge - bt must concede one thing to foundationalists - that we can be certain about a few things.

I also agree with the pragmatists that working definitions are what people use on a daily basis and that our definitions don't matter if they are 100% accurate - only that they work. But when sharpening our definitions - I do not understand how we can be wrong about words like 'certainty' when we are careful. Certain - as in no doubt (not the band).

Maybe you understand this bettwe JL and can help me out here?

TF

You are all wrong. I have no empirical data to support my assertions but this is the mark of a true skeptic.

personally i never have much 'faith' in anything i say!

[and to paraphrase a famous observation: "i think, therefore i think"! - Decartes, i think?]

TF, I can't be of much use here. First, I have no confidence in achieving certainty. To me it is a blue rose. I can FEEL certain, but formal proofs can win arguments but be ultimately wrong, or disproven/replaced some day. Moreover I tend toward anti-foundationalist philosphers, like Nietzsche, James and Rorty.

I apreciate your honesty - and I did not want this to turn into a foundationalist tirade either - I don't hold a LOT of water - I am just wondering about Skeptcism - It seems ALL epistemological models can attack it legitimatly (whether it be foundationalism, coherentism or whatever)

TF

To be sceptical about any thesis is the basic requirement of dialectic thinking.......any thesis should be considered questionable until it is refined by negating its sceptical dimensions....and reforming iys new thesis........ a synthesis ......and itself is viewed sceptically again., in turn.
All thinking begins with scepticism. It certainly not self-refuting ....it doesn't mean that "we know nothing" as a result, as your opening
question inferred,,,,,,which you no doubt added for argumeny's sake.

I think there is a definition gap here.

I am defining 'strong' skepticism as in the philosophical movement of 'we know nothing'.

I think you are talking about Skepticism as a questioning device.

TF

ttf:
Are you distinguishing between 'strong' scepticism
and ordinary scepticism ? ....and asserting that the former means "we know nothing' , while the latter,
at least when you use it, does not mean quite that?
I can only understand your position if you are referring to the philosophy of Skepticism.
which ,as you know, is a doctrine that asserts that
all knowledge is uncertain.
Yes, you are correct when you say that I am talking about scepticism in the dialectical,questioning sense. Skepticism, in itself
is bordering on a dogmatic ....without the use of the diakectic process of thought, don't you think?

I am equating strong scepticism with the philosophy scepticism which is that "all knowledge is uncertain".

It just seems to me that if that is your claim that you are certain about that.

I do think that skepticism is dogmatic but I do not understand how skepticism can be helped if it is used within the frame work of the dialectic.

Unless you are saying that the dialectic uses a weakers sort of scepticism which is to question everything. So in this weaker sense scepticism becomes to be wary of any stated position.

But I think the weaker sense is looking for a certain proof that the stronger sense is ruling out - out of hand.

Golly I hope that made sense.

TF

TF, I guess I am a skeptic, ultimately. I think we can find answers that satisfy our questions. This would apply in the arenas of common sense everyday life, philosophical investigation and the scientific laboratory. We know nothing to be ABSOLUTELY true. Even the notions of knowledge and truth are problematical. But as a human being I'm content with purely human "knowledge". This includes metaphysical conclusions that make us feel we have a grasp on the rock bottom meanings of life, at least for the moment, and pragmatic knowledge which works. Proofs, whether logical or practical, do not indicate progress to me, i.e., that we have transcended the limits of our species' cognitive capacity, only that we have reached that limit. By not being able to refute the proof, we have demonstrated our limit, again, for the moment. You might persuade me with a "proof" that you are right and that I am wrong, but ultimately we are both "wrong." But that rests on the assumption of a god's truth, an absolute truth. I don't believe that exists except in our imagination. We don't even need absolute truth, just ideas the gratify us and that work.