Descartes and Skepticism

Much of what Descartes discusses in his meditations is the importance of skepticism, a mindset that recognizes the limits of our senses. Descartes shows that our senses are fundamentally flawed in that they aren’t able to provide us with the truth. The might get us close, but there is no way of knowing for sure that, for example, what we see is what really exists and that we aren’t in fact dreaming some sort of elaborate dream. To use a science fiction metaphor, how do we know we aren’t simply a brain in a jar that’s being stimulated in an elaborate way that gives us the impression of corporeal existence? Although the likelihood of this is rather small, there is no way of being certain by using our senses. If something as important to our schema as corporeal form can be called into question, then even something as relatively arbitrary as the blueness of the sky must also be questioned. To Descartes, this doubt or skepticism isn’t simply recommended. It is required for intelligent thought.

In many ways, it is those who practice science who must be the most critical of the world around them. As Descartes demonstrates, we shouldn’t accept things at face value. This is especially true for scientists who strive for truth (or, most of the time, what is most likely true). There is no such thing as “proven” in science, because there is always room for doubt. Even well-established theories such as gravity are subject to this doubt, because the sweeping amount of evidence to support the existence of gravity includes evidence from observation. Thus, we can only say that it is very very very likely that gravity exists in the way we have established. To a lot of people, this is a huge turn-off from the scientific field. Even people who love science seem to get frustrated over the vague scientific language. Popular science pages such as http://www.iflscience.com/ are an example of when people who “fucking love science” can fall into media traps that play into our desire to simplify science. Don’t believe me? Good, that means you’re being skeptical. But read some headlines and you will find a lot of affirmative statements, despite science’s inability to completely confirm. Those who participate in science, or who, like me, are studying to do so, know to be wary of these sites. Without skepticism, science is inaccurate in that there is no regard for human error. It is biased in that it can be corrupted by the researcher’s desired outcome. And it is unproductive in that it no longer questions the concepts commonly accepted as truth.

You don’t have to be Descartes or a scientist to understand the purpose of skepticism. In many ways, being skeptical and questioning the world around us allows us to get the most out of our experiences. By refusing to accept things at face value, we open ourselves to a world that is much more complex and exciting. Instead of simply accepting the sky is blue because it is, understanding that the “blueness” is a small range of wavelengths of the sun’s light that are reflected off of particles in the atmosphere and travel miles to the retinas in our eyes where the light is transformed into electrical energy that follows pathways in the brain that ultimately lead us to think the word “blue” is a much more complicated way of thinking. Investigating what we observe in this way can spark questions about our world we might never had thought of. As people living in a foreign city, thinking in skeptical ways urges us to dig deeper and to never accept things the way they are. Everyday we are given new information from our Alliance professors, from Bob, from Chantal, from our host families, and from Paris. When receiving this information, our perception is clouded by personal experience and cultural predispositions. By keeping a skeptical mind, we combat our brain’s natural tendencies to simplify things. How much new and exciting experiences do we miss out on if we aren’t skeptical of all of this information?