Denying Premise

For centuries seeking to find out who we are, where we are from, where we go after we die, and what governs our world I have fascinated mankind. Famous philosophers dedicated their lives to the development of the theory, but the closest theory of success is that their theory is not to be disputed. "I do not know" to one of the oldest problems of civilization may be the only true answer as facts have not been proven to be true. The idea that we can not know the answers to these questions and many other questions leads to the theory of skepticism.

Since we have different knowledge by having different experiences, we can doubt our knowledge. But this is how the "good" God wants. As easily as denying the premise, we can deny evil demon theory by rejecting premise 2. In addition, Descartes denies any theory, but still can use his same thought process. He can deny evil Satan theory using Descartes' knowledge structure and deny one of the facilities. Another way to reject premise 2 is to define knowledge. Descartes insists that knowledge must be undoubted. It must be applied to all other theories and ideas. This is the reason why evil devil theory still exists. However, if Descartes defines knowledge as the fact that his perception is proved, evil devil theory may still be wrong. For example, knowledge comes from our perception, so we do not perceive this demon. According to premise 1, the devil does not exist.

Can the negative premise 2 prove that the discussion of skepticism is wrong? Descartes chose to keep premise 2 the truth, because he believes that knowledge must be undoubted. However, premise 2 can be refused as easily as premise 1 is rejected. There are two ways to deny the premise that the first method can be traced back to Socrates. The second method involves the definition of knowledge. Socrates asked questions: What is the difference between knowledge and pure faith? Socrates replied that knowledge is a true belief and believers have sufficient reasons. Then Aristotle asked about how knowledge is possible. Faith can only prove its validity by relying on other reasonable beliefs. This leads to the view that all knowledge is proved by other knowledge and the chain keeps stretching in the reverse direction until the basic basic belief has no basic reason.

The BIV argument is valid. Therefore, the relevant alternative theorist must deny one of the premises. They agree that you do not know that you are not a BIV, so they accept the first premise. Therefore, they reject the second premise. Even if you do not know that you are not a BIV, you know that you have a hand. In fact, this means that the relevant alternative theorists deny the principle of termination. Let's consider this detail. A related alternative theorist says that this approach has two main problems. First of all, accusing BIV's alternative means is irrelevant unless supplementing the principle description explaining the reason for deprecating the alternative of BIV. Second, the principle of closure has a high degree of internal rationality. If you refuse it, a so-called abominable conjunction is generated. This is one: