Response To Skepticism

In the article Seeking New Laws of Nature (pg. 129) from Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, Richard Feyman wrote that “We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.” Feyman also states that a theory “can never” be proven right. Semantically speaking I suppose that the statement has validity since once a theory has been proven to be correct, it becomes a principle theorem, or fact of reality that can be considered a truth or knowledge.

Feyman's equivocation on the word “theory” for knowledge, in no way hides the fact that he is attempting to deny the validity of knowledge. This postulation (formally known as Skepticism) promotes the evasion of certainty in knowledge. This is the same school of thought purporting that there are no absolutes (which is essentially the same thing as saying nothing can be proven to be true) which implies that we can not achieve certainty about anything. I reject that postulation for many reasons, but initially I reel from the absurdity of the statement itself, making an absolute claim of certainty about being uncertain.

Knowledge is a mental grasp of reality, reached by a process of reason based on verifiable observation. Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt or skepticism. Besides the vast repository of information - facts that have been scientifically proven to be true, existence itself remains immutably self-evident.

To propose that existence is anything other than self-evident reality, is to deny and evade truth and knowledge which is to deny your mind the permission to form cogent, rational evaluations of your perceptions. To assert that these natural facts can not be proved creates an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality. This kind of anti-reasoning is what the Skepticist sustains, and is well represented by Richard Feyman in Seeking New Laws of Nature. Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents with the hopelessness of perpetual uncertainty.

Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition. It is not required that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their rational faculties as Skepticism (Feyman’s version or any other) demands. There is a natural objective alternative that demands the application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth.