forum for week of 26 September: skepticism

Expanding on Spencer's point of non-falsifiability in relation to the idea of skepticism, I feel automatically skeptical and aversive towards any theory or conjecture that is non-falsifiable, which makes me skeptical towards that ultimate philosophical skepticism that states we cannot know anything. I feel it's a similar aversion to non-falsifiability that is what has helped push our scientific progress to where it is today. These NF ideas are rightly viewed to be, while interesting to think and talk about, less than useful in a practical sense.

Compared to a more healthy skepticism, which forces solid evidence to advance an argument, the 'we don't really know anything' skepticism only hinders or will completely end any sort of inquisitive discussion. There are no responses to "oh, there is no way can really know that," and, in the same way, any NF claim. This leads to my own first skeptical inquiry towards any new claim or idea or theory, which is to ask for or think of something that would falsify it. It is easy to think of numerous obvious examples that would immediately falsify any scientific theory.

Back to the main question, we fold because their is no real response to a statement like this. People will either accept it because they can't see anything wrong with it, or reject/ignore it because the statement itself loses all its meaning the moment it is uttered.

"We can't really know anything" also contradicts itself, in that it makes a claim about knowledge that calls into question the certainty of everything, including the statement itself.