基于论证结构分析的怀疑论问题诊断——兼论反怀疑论的可能路径

Diagnosing the Problem of Skepticism according to its Argumentative Structure

在当代英美知识论中，公认的怀疑论论证有两种：不充分决定性（underdetermination）论证和闭合（closure）论证。 1．不充分决定性论证令“O”表示一个通常我们会认为自己知道的命题（如我有两只手），“SH”表示一个恰当选择的怀疑论假设（如我是一个缸中之脑），不充分决定性论证可大致表示如下。

The closure argument and the underdetermination argument are generally acknowledged to be the two kinds of skeptical argument in contemporary epistemology.By examining their logical relations,it can be showed that the former entails the latter——but not conversely,that is,in terms of their refutability,the underdetermination argument is more fundamental than the closure argument.Considering the intuitive plausibility of the closure principle,that is,in terms of its cogency,the closure argument,however,is not redundant.Skepticism,therefore,is both an underdetermination problem and also a closure one.Since the underdetermination argument is more fundamental of the two,we can analysis the anti-skeptical routes based on it.The result shows that the anti-skeptical routes can be reduced to no more than three kinds:Dretske-Nozick line,Mooreanism and contextualism.