Skepticism

eok20

Many philosophers stress being skeptical and beliving things based on rational thinking. However, if this is accepted, shouldn't someone be skeptical about being skeptical and rational. Doing so seems to lead to contradictions; how can one be skeptical of being skeptical and rational without already being skeptical and rational? So it seems that to be skeptical and rational, one must accept them on faith. But then what would the skeptic say when questioned how his faith in skepticism/rationalism is better then believing in the irrational?

Serpo

I think philosophy also has a tough time going beyond physical evidence... is this the type of philosophy you are speaking of? I know you're right, philosophers are the most skeptical and unsure people in the world. Yet, at the same time the most sure, too. Because we spend so much time thinking and researching I think you could say the end results in many of our "rational" reasonings have enough evidence to support them. But I do get what you're saying, and I believe it is a question humanity will face for eternity. There's just no way around faith because there will always be unknowns before knowns, and there will always be unknowns.

Andre

Perharps check the philosophy of the father of all skeptics, Karl Popper

http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/intro_p...ro_popper.html

That's probably why
But in some branches, skeptism is getting synonym to enemies of humanity.

Dmstifik8ion

Many philosophers do not understand the difference between believing and knowing. Rational thinking relies completely on verifiable facts and the way to confirm them. This is where skeptical and rational thinking part ways. Eternal skepticism is the inability to achieve certainty or the refusal to accept responsibility for the evidence of ones own rational processes.

Faith is poison to the rational process. Examining reality for any other purpose than to gain knowledge of it is completely irrational; not that there’s anything wrong with that!