What do you think about Moore's Proof?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand#Explanation

Answer 1

The best thing about it is that it inspired Wittgenstein to pursue a hecka cool line of thought.

He thought Moore was misusing the word 'know' as, in its language game it must be able to be doubted, and one must be able to give grounds, supporting the claim to knowledge, and those grounds must be more solid than the original claim.

As my whole life is my grounds for my true belief that this is my hand, this the other, I'm speaking (writing) English, etc. these are not properly called knowledge.

Check out the book I site (and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, too). He's hard to read, but he changed my thinking profoundly.

Of course, no skeptic, on hearing Moore's view is going to slap his head and go "Of course!"

Answer 2

Lame.

Skepticism is so powerful and he just runs away from the problem. Like everyone else. If you actually dwell in it you can do something great like Descartes, Hume, Kant or recently Austin... but Moore is just assuming the external world to prove the external world. It's BS.

To use Cohen's example-- we can't treat the successful plane-spotter as if he Knows the plane F he discerns is what the plane-spotting manual says it is. Because there are planes of type F and G that are indiscernable, and the manual simply doesn't include mention of the G's. But WE know that he doesn't know when he says he does---- And that's the probelm Moore can't face. Moore simply says I know the plane I see is an F because I know the incompatibilities are False, one being that it is not a G....... And he uses lack of evidence as the basis for this. Which is tantamount to saying someone knows the world is flat because they are ignorant of Astronomy.

I feel he can't be saying this,
so I'm going to read his points directly.

--------
Umm. I got the modus tolens wrong.
It's: I know the plane is an F, therefore the incompatibilities are false, vis. that it is a G. The basis for his knowledge is intuition. The manual gives a description of planes type F-- and the spotted plane fits the description. Therefore the plane-spotter knows it is an F. But only nominally. Meanwhile the plane is Actually a G (which the manual omits). So it's a contradiction to say it's both true that it is an F, and therefore the incompatibility doesn't exist, that it is a G-- AND that it is a G in actuality (by the given example) and not an F.

Answer 3

More of a fan of Occam's Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Answer 4

It strikes me as an argument from preponderance. Are there degrees of rationality? He seems to be saying that if we are 90% certain of X and 10% certain of Y, in a forced choice situation we should choose X. But if both are possible, even though only one is likely, he is falling victim to the flip side of Occam's Razor. Just because something is less likely or is more complicated doesn't mean it's true (and the inverse).

Answer 5

I think it's a suitably trivial response to a rather trivial branch of philosophical thought. Skepticism concerning the material world is to sincere philosophical inquiry as Kerouac-worship is to literary study: a useful gateway for teenagers, perhaps, but a pretty embarrassing substitute when found among adults.

Answer 6

Proof positive that with out "hands" this would be "mostly" be impossible, go figure.

Am I missing something or something like that.

Answer 7

You have ate way to much acid. You and Leary must hang out alot.

Answer 8

Moronic. "Moore does not attack the skeptical argument, instead, he boldly claims that it is wrong, because its conclusion is unintuitive." If something is intuitive that proves only that it is intuitive.

Answer 9

i think im confused

Answer 10

who?