Skeptical Appeal: The Source‐Content Bias

Cognitive Science 38 (5):307-324 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Radical skepticism is the view that we know nothing or at least next to nothing. Nearly no one actually believes that skepticism is true. Yet it has remained a serious topic of discussion for millennia and it looms large in popular culture. What explains its persistent and widespread appeal? How does the skeptic get us to doubt what we ordinarily take ourselves to know? I present evidence from two experiments that classic skeptical arguments gain potency from an interaction between two factors. First, people evaluate inferential belief more harshly than perceptual belief. Second, people evaluate inferential belief more harshly when its content is negative (i.e., that something is not the case) than when it is positive (i.e., that something is the case). It just so happens that potent skeptical arguments tend to focus our attention on negative inferential beliefs, and we are especially prone to doubt that such beliefs count as knowledge. That is, our cognitive evaluations are biased against this specific combination of source and content. The skeptic sows seeds of doubt by exploiting this feature of our psychology
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-07-02
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Knowledge and its Limits.Williamson, Timothy

View all 94 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Choosing and Refusing: Doxastic Voluntarism and Folk Psychology.Turri, John; Rose, David & Buckwalter, Wesley

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
125 ( #29,734 of 50,501 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #33,486 of 50,501 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.