Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:11:15.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BRAINS IN VATS? DON'T BOTHER!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Peter Baumann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary discussions of epistemological skepticism – the view that we do not and cannot know anything about the world around us – focus very much on a certain kind of skeptical argument involving a skeptical scenario (a situation familiar from Descartes' First Meditation). According to the argument, knowing some ordinary proposition about the world (one we usually take ourselves to know) requires knowing we are not in some such skeptical scenario SK; however, since we cannot know that we are not in SK we also cannot know any ordinary proposition. One of the most prominent skeptical scenarios is the brain-in-the-vat-scenario: An evil scientist has operated on an unsuspecting subject, removed the subject's brain and put it in a vat where it is kept functioning and is connected to some computer which feeds the brain the illusion that everything is “normal”. This paper looks at one aspect of this scenario after another – envatment, disembodiment, weird cognitive processes, lack of the right kind of epistemic standing, and systematic deception. The conclusion is that none of these aspects (in isolation or in combination) is of any relevance for a would-be skeptical argument; the brain-in-the-vat-scenario is irrelevant to and useless for skeptical purposes. Given that related scenarios (e.g., involving evil demons) share the defects of the brain-in-the-vat-scenario, the skeptic should not put any hopes on Cartesian topoi.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 186 - 199
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkins, P. and Nance, I. 2014. ‘A Problem for the Closure Argument.’ International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, 4: 36–49.Google Scholar
Baumann, P. 2011. ‘Epistemic Closure.’ In Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, pp. 597–608. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. L. 1994. ‘The Structure of the Skeptical Argument.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54: 827–35.Google Scholar
Carter, J. A., Kallestrup, J., Orestis Palermos, S. and Pritchard, D. 2014. ‘Varieties of Externalism.’ Philosophical Issues, 24: 63–109.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1998. ‘Two Kinds of Skeptical Argument.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58: 143–59.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 2002. ‘Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65: 309–29.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 1984. Elbow Room. The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1907–1913. Meditationes de prima philosophia, René Descartes, OEuvres de Descartes (Adam, C. and Tannery, P., eds), Paris: Cerf, 1907–1913/ Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin 1964–1976 (reprint), vol. VII.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem.’ Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. 1970. ‘Epistemic Operators.’ Journal of Philosophy, 69: 1007–23.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1973. Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. 1966/1967. ‘A Philosopher's Nightmare or the Ghost not Laid.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67: 179–88.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. 2015. ‘How You Know You are not a Brain in a Vat.’ Philosophical Studies, 172: 2799–822.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kraft, T. 2013. ‘Sceptical Scenarios are not Error-Possibilities.’ Erkenntnis, 78: 59–72.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 1990. Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2010. ‘Cognitive Ability and the Extended Cognition Thesis.’ Synthese, 175: 133–51.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1981. ‘Brains in a Vat.’ In Reason, Truth and History, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roush, S. 2010. ‘Closure on Skepticism.’ Journal of Philosophy, 107: 243–56.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 1996. Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Skepticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Winters, B. 1981. ‘Sceptical Counterpossibilities.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62: 30–8.Google Scholar