The Nature of Scepticism

You need review the meaning of Empiricism, first.And then, yes, as you expand upon the simple meaning of relying upon observation, not naive at all,... we can/could add many of the sophisticated reassurances that confirm that we are, indeed, seeing what we thought we saw, like asking peers to review the experiement.Nevertheless, Empiricism is exactly what I said it is:empiricism /emˈpirəˌsizəm/
Noun1.The theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
2.Practice based on experiment and observation

As I have already partially explained quantum mechanics has already done away with the notion that the sort of cause and effect that one arrives at from everyday experience applies universally.And it doesn't make sense to say that science has invalidated the axioms science itself is dervied from does it?All of which suggests that such assumptions aren't really axioms at all. The things you are calling axioms sound more like hypotheses - Assumptions to be tested against observed reality.

You actually said "seeing is believing".....Which would be naive empiricism.And you still haven't explained how the more reliable (and still developing) approach to empiricism I outlined could all be incorporated into an axiom (or few) have you?

Now after having brought you up to this point, in regard to what constitutes "grounds,"...... I answer your OP again.Russell ignored the necessity incumbent upon himself, to agree to some axiomatic discipline wherein his scepticism could be put to the test of a Proof.Hence,
1) No, it is not.2) No, it is not.3) Yes, it is paradoxical that Russell would suggest he is sceptical while ignoring the reason we have developed disciplines exactly for the purpose of showing people like him how reasoning can establish truth.
An yes, it is subversive to humanity to support the contention that everything can be doubted at a personal and subjective level simply because one refuses to ground his thinking in one or another of the disciplines of Knowledge.
That is to subvert the very premise that we can think our way through life.

Why are you so obsessed with axiomatic disciplines?As you yourself have pointed out calling one’s assumptions axioms has absolutely no bearing on whether they, or the conclusions derived from them, remotely conform or even particularly relate to reality. In fact most of the axioms you have put forward would be better described as failed hypotheses (Ptolemy’s model, everyday notions of cause and effect etc. etc.) So why bother obsessing over these axioms at all?Furthermore your attempts to show that science is axiomatic have fallen flat. Thus providing grounds for significant scepticism towards your assertion. I don't think you have understood what he is saying. Here is another Bertie quote:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

You make my point. Neanderthal man failed to model the truth. The existence of "Truth" did him no good.Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".

Why would/should one care what his adversary in this discussion thinks about the arguments that corrected you in every case?I consider the matter closed from this side, and you may wallow in your attempts to resurrect any face serving come backs, imho.

Dude - You're funny.How do you know you are correct? What axioms are you deriving this conclusion from..........? Then I guess congratulations are in order.......

Yes, ... and your opinions depend on your world view. Different people will have different opinions. Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information. Strictly speaking the answer is no.But again, you are free to have a personal opinion and act on that.Enjoy(I been sick, but I don't believe it is an ethereal elephants epidemic )

Interesting question -- what gives us confidence in anything?Does this rely on objective application of discrete criteria, or is it subjective -- ie, would different people reach the same conclusion?How do we know what is "true" in any concept?Enjoy

What causes us to tweak the model?Enjoy

But with regard to safegaurding my children's brains I am not interested in mere opinion. I want to take the safest rational course of action as per my stated criteria:[1] I want to safeguard my children from suffering brain damage.
[2] I want to act in a manner that is rational.So - What is the safest rational course of action according to your approach? This is what I want to know. Just waiting to see if my children become brain damaged is not a sensible approach to the predicament at hand. If this is the only rational course of action according to your approach then your approach is practically useless for any situation where the potential consequences of inaction are dire. Why not?

On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.Similarly by the terms of your wider argument we must take an 'unconvinced' position towards your wider argument. Is the position you are advocating in this thread derived from verifiable objective evidence?Is the position you are advocating in his thread a guess? Are you convinced or unconvinced by your arguments in this thread?For the record - I am unconvinced.

The desire to have a better model.

Reference, please?