Is The Proof Of G. E Moore's Skepticism Argument

Concilia Ndlovu
Dr Aaron Champene
Introduction to Philosophy
4/16/2018
Proof of an External World G.E Moore
Skepticism is the view that we cannot have knowledge about some realm of reality, such as the external world (class notes). A skeptical thesis typically claims that if a certain range of beliefs lacks a certain status, some skeptics may claim that the beliefs in the targeted range aren’t justified, or that they’re possibly false, or that they aren’t known with complete certainty. The skeptical modus ponen states that the necessity of an argument takes after a type of claim such that the end goal of its soundness and formal structure will take this formal structure 'If P then Q'. Skepticism emphasizes that knowledge of

The nature of that experience is "the experience of having hands whereby he argues from the existence of his own hands and to prove the existence of an external world, his reasoning is as follows:
(1) Here is a hand.
(2) Here is another hand.
(3) Therefore this argument proves the existence of the external world.
Moore does not try to prove that he has hands, he simply uses that as a starting point for his argument. What he proves instead is that there is an external world. He even states that “I have hands” proof he gave for the existence of an external world is a rigorous proof and it is impossible to give a better proof. He also claims that what makes it a valid proof is that it satisfies three conditions. According to Moore the three conditions that are necessary for a proof to be considered rigorous are:
1.The premises must be known.
2.The conclusion must not be same as the premise(s).
3.If the premises are true, then likewise the conclusion must also be

In this case and context, Moore argues that because he held up his two hands earlier, therefore two hands existed earlier meaning at least two external objects have existed in the past and those are two conclusive proof. Moore does acknowledge that he understands many philosophers, will still disapprove his rigorous proof but he, in turn, wants to know what exactly they would want as proof to a point that if they don’t get it they will not consider his proof. Moore proceeds by example. He says that he can give you an example of a belief that you can identify as knowledge even though you have no way of testing it. The example is the belief that you are awake right now and not dreaming. He is not saying that we never need evidence in order to know. What he is saying is that at least some of our beliefs can be identified as knowledge even though there is no way to test