A successful argument is logically and factually strong. Barry Stroud’s Cartesian Skeptical argument is logically and factually strong - it uses a modus ponens argument form. First I will explain his argument (Car-Skep) in support of his view demonstrating our lack of knowledge of the external world and then I will explain his argument in support of a controversial premise in (Car-Skep). I will explain both arguments, state why Car-Skep is cogent/successful, state an argument made by a critic, defend Stroud’s Car-Skep argument with the inclusion of supporting arguments made by other philosophers. Stroud’s argument is successful because it is one that is logically and factually strong. Stroud examines the Cartesian skeptical argument regarding the external world. Stroud states that knowledge is a common everyday task. …show more content…
While assuming these things, Descartes disproves his own argument. He states that one can never know anything through senses, because at any moment one might be dreaming and therefore the evidence on which you are basing your beliefs might be false. Stroud’s argument, in modus ponens argument form, refutes Descartes’ argument regarding the external world. Stroud’s Cartesian Skeptical Argument is: If Descartes does not know that he’s near a fire, then we never know anything about the external world. (premise) Descartes does not know that he is near a fire. (premise) So, we never know anything about the external world. (From 1 and 2) Stroud states that Descartes lacks the ability to prove he is by a fire. In order to refute this claim, both parts of the premise must be false. Stroud refutes premise one, stating that Descartes does not know that he is near a fire nor does he know anything about the external world. Stroud states that things could appear the same way in reality as they do in a realistic dream. In order for Descartes to prove that he is by a fire, he must prove that he is not