forum for week of 2 October

I believe Bargle’s empirical approach to perception better achieves the goals of epistemology, since Argle’s radically sceptic stance can never achieve knowledge. Argle does pose a valid point by suggesting that all our perceptions could be false, and humanity may be subject to a massive illusion. Although his stance attempts to refute the existence of knowledge, it may support epistemic values in the sense that it attempts to achieve truth. I believe Bargle’s stance is also valid in the context of epistemology, and far more comforting in the the context of morality. Three main aspects of humanity, which can justify Bargle's stance are evolution, intuition and co-operation. The presence of these phenomena suggests that human knowledge is a viable source of knowledge, since humanity would not have developed without their impacts, and our perceptual beliefs from generation to generation must be true. Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that Bargle's stance can justify human knowledge, and even though the possibility of a mass illusion does exist, I believe this stance is too speculative and counter-productive.