Anybody here consider themselves a skeptic? What does it meant to say that? And why do some people associate being a skeptic with a kind of intellectual virtue?
What I mean by that is using skepticism as a method vs. skeptic as a position.
Essentially, it's a provisonal approach to claims that people make about any number of topics by avoiding fallacious arguments, not accepting claims until they've been demonstrated, being OK with taking the position of "I don't know" until such time that evidence has been presented or before one has had a chance to evaluate said evidence. It's more of a "how" to think than a "what" to think approach.
No dogma, no sacred cows, follow the evidence where it leads and adjust your opinions to fit the evidence rather than ignore the evidence that's inconvenient to your opinions.
Like toward every claim? Most "skeptics" I see seem to be faithful secular humanists, with their own set of loyalties, emotional investments, and such. Do you think that's an unfair characterization?
To me, the ideal skeptic would be Sextus Empiricus or somebody like that. But he would be a skeptic about many of our scientific claims too, on methodological grounds. Induction doesn't guarantee anything, and Hume already correctly noted that it is inevitably circular.
and I saw his claim on the climate thread that people who doubt climate change can't be real skeptics. I wanted to move from that convoluted thread to think about the question of what makes a real skeptic.
but there are many things that are anti-skeptical that just seem obvious to me: we rely on testimony to live our lives; that is trust in others' claims. If we didn't, practically none of us could claim to know anything about science or history.
Well, I'm sure there are some things that I've not yet examined
with as much scrutiny as others for one reason or another, and being human, skeptics are as prone to emotion, faulty logic, and other missteps as anyone else.
It's not always easy to recognize it when you're doing it yourself. It's much easier to recognize the failings of others, but, when I make poor arguments or espouse something that's faulty and it's pointed out to me, I try very hard to re-examine the points and adjust accordingly.
I certainly won't claim to get it right all the time. That's probably impossible.
I guess I could fit some definition of a secular humanist, but I wouldn't bind myself to any specific tenants if such exist.
As far as Hume -- yeah there is a circular component. I don't know how you get around it without delving into deep solopsism. I think we have to accept a priori that we live in this world and the world is reality even if it isn't, because there doesn't appear to be any other choice.
Beyond that, again, I see it more of a method than a position. It's how I evaluate what people claim. Some claims require more examination than others.
When a "Climate Change Skeptic" declares herself so, that is a position vs how I use skpeticism as a method.
This is entirely fair. the idea is that someone is trying to take on the mantle of respectable intellectual boldness or something, but it's only a very select and narrow. in some ways its like what bothers me a little bit about secular humanists who aren't really skeptics but say they are skeptics. In a way it seems like people want to shroud themselves in that air of intellectual rigor but in a way that is cherry picked. I'm sorry I'm dictating this now I'm not in front of the computer so there may be typos.
of your reasons for starting this. What is your ulterior motive?
honestly Wu is one of the people on TV I who actually thinks about this stuff pretty seriously and I enjoy chatting with him about it. much of my own work is on epistemology or the theory of knowledge. and I've spent a lot of time on my own thinking about skepticism and responses to it.
personally I feel like a skeptic about many things but I do think there are very strong responses to it as a wholesale outlook.
I also think that incidentally classical skepticism is is a very conservative view of life because you have nothing to guide you other than cultural patterns and habits. this would see seem to leave little room for reform.
in some ways its like what bothers me a little bit about secular humanists who aren't really skeptics but say they are skeptics.
I think it's probably fair to say that within any group or subgroup, no matter how well intentioned the original goal may have been, there will be others who appropriate that same label and co-opt it for their own reasons. I don't think this can be avoided, but it can be called out.
I also think that incidentally classical skepticism is is a very conservative view of life because you have nothing to guide you other than cultural patterns and habits. this would see seem to leave little room for reform.
Which is why I lean more towards methodological and scientific skepticism rather than classical or philosophical skepticism.
I'm less interested in the feasibility of whether or not truth can be found at all and more interested in whether or not people's claims hold water with what evidence we have available now.
Chances are a great deal of what I accept based on evidence today will be viewed very differently 200 years from now when more evidence is available. I can't fault our ancestors about not considering evidence that wasn't available to them in their time. I can fault my peers that do the same thing today, however.
cynacism where I'm constantly thinkIng that moron can't be that stupid, wholly shit what if he's the smartest guy in circle of dummies. Stuff like that, all day long
is that no matter how devoted one may try to be to rigid empirical criteria for justified true belief, he or she is still taking quite a bit for granted, particularly in regards to where the line is drawn between subjectivity and objectivity, and how to ascertain the proof of one's own adopted verification principle(s).
is that no matter how devoted one may try to be to rigid empirical criteria for justified true belief, he or she is still taking quite a bit for granted, particularly in regards to where the line is drawn between subjectivity and objectivity, and how to ascertain the proof of one's own adopted verification principle(s).
I think you're right about this. And I think this is what wu is getting at when he talked about solepcism. this is also why skepticism is so similar to idealism ultimately.
,I've tried to develop an argument based on some important ancient philosophers to the effect that any kind of epistemic refinement or improvement requires some kind of objective world or else it's hard to make sense of moving from error to truth. Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.
is that no matter how devoted one may try to be to rigid empirical criteria for justified true belief, he or she is still taking quite a bit for granted, particularly in regards to where the line is drawn between subjectivity and objectivity, and how to ascertain the proof of one's own adopted verification principle(s).
I think you're right about this. And I think this is what wu is getting at when he talked about solepcism. this is also why skepticism is so similar to idealism ultimately.
,I've tried to develop an argument based on some important ancient philosophers to the effect that any kind of epistemic refinement or improvement requires some kind of objective world or else it's hard to make sense of moving from error to truth. Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.
i dictated this before I saw your comment above. I'm glad I was in the right ballpark.
I have come to think of it as one possible default perspective a person may have ...when the range of our "mindfulness" ( see what I did there) is at attention and more full on cerebrum.
But life and time requires short cut thinking and unexamined stipulations ...and time where a scan would reveal a spread of flamed neurons and cool spots ...the ticker tape of chattering monkeys.
I dunno...I think the organ itself does not allow pure modes of thinking every moment we awake.
Just watch us post...sloppy until intrigued and alert.
fwiw
you have to provide evidence reject the null hypothesis
I dunno...I think the organ itself does not allow pure modes of thinking every moment we awake.
As far as I can tell, there does seem to be some compelling evidence that humans evolved to fear some things irrationally as a "better safe than sorry" (my emphasis) evolutionary survival method.
Skepticism, quite admittedly, goes very much against that grain. It's very easy to fall into faulty reasoning and it definitely takes work to avoid those pitfalls.
''Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.''
I am sceptical, in any case, he may have said something, in ancient Greek, that sounded to you, after 6 translations, roughly like that, but no.
I have come to think of it as one possible default perspective a person may have ...when the range of our "mindfulness" ( see what I did there) is at attention and more full on cerebrum.
But life and time requires short cut thinking and unexamined stipulations ...and time where a scan would reveal a spread of flamed neurons and cool spots ...the ticker tape of chattering monkeys.
I dunno...I think the organ itself does not allow pure modes of thinking every moment we awake.
Just watch us post...sloppy until intrigued and alert.
fwiw
Agreed, Bill. Good considerations to remember.
I also think that they are one way of putting pressure on the classical skeptical ideal that has been advocate by James and others. We have very good *pragmatic* reasons to not be skeptics.
Clifford famously argued that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (link below).
But William James rightly responded out that this idea involves a value judgement that has real-world consequences.
Skeptics chose to avoid possible error at the cost of possible hidden truth. Non-skeptics choose to gain possible hidden truth at the cost of possible error.
In short, in many cases, we need to have convictions that are not grounded in systematic testing if we are to achieve certain things. A man who waits until a lady proves to him that she will love him before he shows her love will likely die alone. So too, the skeptic and those truths that take some kind of commitment to uncover.
This also holds in terms of discovery sometimes, only because we have initial belief beyond the evidence are we able to discover truth that is hidden or latent. Great scientists, discoverers, archeologists, etc. have pushed on with a faithful hunch, amidst criticism and mockery, only to finally, against all odds, uncover some hidden truth.
In that way skepticism as very-critical-thinking, what Wu is advocating, makes far more sense than a more wholesale, systematic version. Link - ( New Window )
the pushing back is James', not the skeptical ideal
I don't know if there's any way to avoid that with any method one uses to evaluate claims unless you deep dive into solopsism.
And even then, if we do occupy some solopsistic reality, I don't see how we'd know any better that we were.
I guess, Mr. Bungle, my point there is that criticism isn't relegated strictly to skepticsm as a method, but as far as I can tell, all methods
Oh, and about circularity, I'm convinced that at some level, circularity is impossible. But so what.
William Alston and Ernest Sosa are two contemporary thinkers who've argued effectively that some kind of circularity is inescapable and yet not necessarily vicious.
Funny you mention James. A favorite of mine for a time.
Oddly this debate. ..much closer to some breakthroughs in cog science and linguistics can be found in some of Mearlu-Ponty's debate with Sartre
For me, I would aim for and most appreciate skepticism in as a goal...The hard work to be precise and sharp yet nuanced and balanced...In polished consequence of thinking on a serious subject.
But I find it torture to attempt on subjects of too many variables ( football?) or when just jawboning.
Most of all I find it requires equal thought partners to stay in the groove....for the frustration of dealing with the "flaws"( incompatible) of a mystic or feeling comfortable with an insight generated seemingly by accident.
Net net...important to hold on to and aim for.
As time goes on I find surrendering to how much animal we are heir to is more realistic...whereas aiming for the discipline of the 24/7 cerebrum at its full impressive powers a younger pursuit suitable when all seems possible.
It is the essence of certainty only to be established only with reservations.
We know through our experience and not our intellect
Maurice Merleau Ponty. From the Phenomenology of Perception
Good stuff, Bill. I admit that after Kant, I am pretty weak on continental thinkers, including Merleau Ponty.
This part isn't clear to me: "We know through our experience and not our intellect." Yes, we do know through experience. But to know anything, experience must be conceptual, and since concepts can me mis-ascribed or falsely deployed, there is some intellectual component even of perception.
Sellars' famous "myth of the given" was an attempt to argue that the idea that we can have raw unmediated experience, which still somehow provides knowledge is incoherent.
To return to something above, for me, the pragmatic arguments have many important applications. Here's another thing, and it goes back to your reflections on our brain.
We do we even care about epistemology? Unless we are doing it as a kind of sudoku for the elite (which perhaps does exist in some academic circles, to be sure), we are interested in cognitive improvement and refinement.
Why care about cognitive refinement? Because we understand that we live better when we have accurate beliefs.
As such, if our attempts at cognitive refinement terminate in a staunch "classical" sort of skepticism (that of Sextus and others), this leads to a certain stultification of various life-aims. Skepticism is a protective attitude, not a proactive one, it will not result in refinement of the action-guiding features of cognition, and we will not live as well.
As such, retreat into staunch skepticism is at odds with the very reason we even care about epistemology.
in my own "experience" I went forward from Kant to Hume to Locke to Decartes to others to James
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
in my own "experience" I went forward from Kant to Hume to Locke to Decartes to others to James
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
Re: your latter paragraph, absolutely. I do think that skepticism as a kind of therapy makes the most sense, as seen in, e.g., Nagarjuna and Changtzu. I've read a fair amount of daoism later in life (my professional specialty is not China; I read it in translation). It started because I wanted to be able to teach it to my students, but now I am really just a fan. I must say that it does really speak to me.
reminded me of why I hated school. The philosophy teacher would throw that out and said there would be a pop quiz on the context. I knew I was dead in the water. No offense to Bill2 for being smart
in my own "experience" I went forward from Kant to Hume to Locke to Decartes to others to James
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
BTW, not sure if you've seen the book discussed below, but it's on my desk right now. Looking forward to getting to it. Link - ( New Window )
What I mean by that is using skepticism as a method vs. skeptic as a position.
Essentially, it's a provisonal approach to claims that people make about any number of topics by avoiding fallacious arguments, not accepting claims until they've been demonstrated, being OK with taking the position of "I don't know" until such time that evidence has been presented or before one has had a chance to evaluate said evidence. It's more of a "how" to think than a "what" to think approach.
No dogma, no sacred cows, follow the evidence where it leads and adjust your opinions to fit the evidence rather than ignore the evidence that's inconvenient to your opinions.
To me, the ideal skeptic would be Sextus Empiricus or somebody like that. But he would be a skeptic about many of our scientific claims too, on methodological grounds. Induction doesn't guarantee anything, and Hume already correctly noted that it is inevitably circular.
[irony OFF]
It's not always easy to recognize it when you're doing it yourself. It's much easier to recognize the failings of others, but, when I make poor arguments or espouse something that's faulty and it's pointed out to me, I try very hard to re-examine the points and adjust accordingly.
I certainly won't claim to get it right all the time. That's probably impossible.
I guess I could fit some definition of a secular humanist, but I wouldn't bind myself to any specific tenants if such exist.
As far as Hume -- yeah there is a circular component. I don't know how you get around it without delving into deep solopsism. I think we have to accept a priori that we live in this world and the world is reality even if it isn't, because there doesn't appear to be any other choice.
Beyond that, again, I see it more of a method than a position. It's how I evaluate what people claim. Some claims require more examination than others.
Which is why examination should be proportioned to the claim.
You tell me you have a dog, I can accept that on its face.
You tell me you have a dog that can talk and fly, I'm gonna need more.
This is entirely fair. the idea is that someone is trying to take on the mantle of respectable intellectual boldness or something, but it's only a very select and narrow. in some ways its like what bothers me a little bit about secular humanists who aren't really skeptics but say they are skeptics. In a way it seems like people want to shroud themselves in that air of intellectual rigor but in a way that is cherry picked. I'm sorry I'm dictating this now I'm not in front of the computer so there may be typos.
honestly Wu is one of the people on TV I who actually thinks about this stuff pretty seriously and I enjoy chatting with him about it. much of my own work is on epistemology or the theory of knowledge. and I've spent a lot of time on my own thinking about skepticism and responses to it.
personally I feel like a skeptic about many things but I do think there are very strong responses to it as a wholesale outlook.
I also think that incidentally classical skepticism is is a very conservative view of life because you have nothing to guide you other than cultural patterns and habits. this would see seem to leave little room for reform.
If you think otherwise when she says "They're real" you're a skeptic.
I think it's probably fair to say that within any group or subgroup, no matter how well intentioned the original goal may have been, there will be others who appropriate that same label and co-opt it for their own reasons. I don't think this can be avoided, but it can be called out.
Which is why I lean more towards methodological and scientific skepticism rather than classical or philosophical skepticism.
I'm less interested in the feasibility of whether or not truth can be found at all and more interested in whether or not people's claims hold water with what evidence we have available now.
Chances are a great deal of what I accept based on evidence today will be viewed very differently 200 years from now when more evidence is available. I can't fault our ancestors about not considering evidence that wasn't available to them in their time. I can fault my peers that do the same thing today, however.
i mean, people know, stuff, ya'know?
beating up that old person? heck, pass me a stick bioy!
fires and mayhem? all the better, as long as the prevalence of people think its that thingy to do nowadayz
And even then, if we do occupy some solopsistic reality, I don't see how we'd know any better that we were.
I guess, Mr. Bungle, my point there is that criticism isn't relegated strictly to skepticsm as a method, but as far as I can tell, all methods
I think you're right about this. And I think this is what wu is getting at when he talked about solepcism. this is also why skepticism is so similar to idealism ultimately.
,I've tried to develop an argument based on some important ancient philosophers to the effect that any kind of epistemic refinement or improvement requires some kind of objective world or else it's hard to make sense of moving from error to truth. Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.
Quote:
is that no matter how devoted one may try to be to rigid empirical criteria for justified true belief, he or she is still taking quite a bit for granted, particularly in regards to where the line is drawn between subjectivity and objectivity, and how to ascertain the proof of one's own adopted verification principle(s).
I think you're right about this. And I think this is what wu is getting at when he talked about solepcism. this is also why skepticism is so similar to idealism ultimately.
,I've tried to develop an argument based on some important ancient philosophers to the effect that any kind of epistemic refinement or improvement requires some kind of objective world or else it's hard to make sense of moving from error to truth. Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.
i dictated this before I saw your comment above. I'm glad I was in the right ballpark.
But life and time requires short cut thinking and unexamined stipulations ...and time where a scan would reveal a spread of flamed neurons and cool spots ...the ticker tape of chattering monkeys.
I dunno...I think the organ itself does not allow pure modes of thinking every moment we awake.
Just watch us post...sloppy until intrigued and alert.
fwiw
As far as I can tell, there does seem to be some compelling evidence that humans evolved to fear some things irrationally as a "better safe than sorry" (my emphasis) evolutionary survival method.
Skepticism, quite admittedly, goes very much against that grain. It's very easy to fall into faulty reasoning and it definitely takes work to avoid those pitfalls.
''Plato famously said that you can't simply think cognitive improvement can be couched in terms like mental health unless you have an objective sense of what makes someone healthy.''
I am sceptical, in any case, he may have said something, in ancient Greek, that sounded to you, after 6 translations, roughly like that, but no.
But life and time requires short cut thinking and unexamined stipulations ...and time where a scan would reveal a spread of flamed neurons and cool spots ...the ticker tape of chattering monkeys.
I dunno...I think the organ itself does not allow pure modes of thinking every moment we awake.
Just watch us post...sloppy until intrigued and alert.
fwiw
Agreed, Bill. Good considerations to remember.
I also think that they are one way of putting pressure on the classical skeptical ideal that has been advocate by James and others. We have very good *pragmatic* reasons to not be skeptics.
Clifford famously argued that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (link below).
But William James rightly responded out that this idea involves a value judgement that has real-world consequences.
Skeptics chose to avoid possible error at the cost of possible hidden truth. Non-skeptics choose to gain possible hidden truth at the cost of possible error.
In short, in many cases, we need to have convictions that are not grounded in systematic testing if we are to achieve certain things. A man who waits until a lady proves to him that she will love him before he shows her love will likely die alone. So too, the skeptic and those truths that take some kind of commitment to uncover.
This also holds in terms of discovery sometimes, only because we have initial belief beyond the evidence are we able to discover truth that is hidden or latent. Great scientists, discoverers, archeologists, etc. have pushed on with a faithful hunch, amidst criticism and mockery, only to finally, against all odds, uncover some hidden truth.
In that way skepticism as very-critical-thinking, what Wu is advocating, makes far more sense than a more wholesale, systematic version.
Link - ( New Window )
And even then, if we do occupy some solopsistic reality, I don't see how we'd know any better that we were.
I guess, Mr. Bungle, my point there is that criticism isn't relegated strictly to skepticsm as a method, but as far as I can tell, all methods
Oh, and about circularity, I'm convinced that at some level, circularity is impossible. But so what.
William Alston and Ernest Sosa are two contemporary thinkers who've argued effectively that some kind of circularity is inescapable and yet not necessarily vicious.
Yes it is.
Quote:
Cynicism and contraianism for their own sake
Yes it is.
Ha!
Link - ( New Window )
"I am The Doctor"
Oddly this debate. ..much closer to some breakthroughs in cog science and linguistics can be found in some of Mearlu-Ponty's debate with Sartre
For me, I would aim for and most appreciate skepticism in as a goal...The hard work to be precise and sharp yet nuanced and balanced...In polished consequence of thinking on a serious subject.
But I find it torture to attempt on subjects of too many variables ( football?) or when just jawboning.
Most of all I find it requires equal thought partners to stay in the groove....for the frustration of dealing with the "flaws"( incompatible) of a mystic or feeling comfortable with an insight generated seemingly by accident.
Net net...important to hold on to and aim for.
As time goes on I find surrendering to how much animal we are heir to is more realistic...whereas aiming for the discipline of the 24/7 cerebrum at its full impressive powers a younger pursuit suitable when all seems possible.
Fwiw
We know through our experience and not our intellect
Maurice Merleau Ponty. From the Phenomenology of Perception
We know through our experience and not our intellect
Maurice Merleau Ponty. From the Phenomenology of Perception
Good stuff, Bill. I admit that after Kant, I am pretty weak on continental thinkers, including Merleau Ponty.
This part isn't clear to me: "We know through our experience and not our intellect." Yes, we do know through experience. But to know anything, experience must be conceptual, and since concepts can me mis-ascribed or falsely deployed, there is some intellectual component even of perception.
Sellars' famous "myth of the given" was an attempt to argue that the idea that we can have raw unmediated experience, which still somehow provides knowledge is incoherent.
To return to something above, for me, the pragmatic arguments have many important applications. Here's another thing, and it goes back to your reflections on our brain.
We do we even care about epistemology? Unless we are doing it as a kind of sudoku for the elite (which perhaps does exist in some academic circles, to be sure), we are interested in cognitive improvement and refinement.
Why care about cognitive refinement? Because we understand that we live better when we have accurate beliefs.
As such, if our attempts at cognitive refinement terminate in a staunch "classical" sort of skepticism (that of Sextus and others), this leads to a certain stultification of various life-aims. Skepticism is a protective attitude, not a proactive one, it will not result in refinement of the action-guiding features of cognition, and we will not live as well.
As such, retreat into staunch skepticism is at odds with the very reason we even care about epistemology.
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsr9t44kc-Q&list=RDTsr9t44kc-Q#t=0
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
Re: your latter paragraph, absolutely. I do think that skepticism as a kind of therapy makes the most sense, as seen in, e.g., Nagarjuna and Changtzu. I've read a fair amount of daoism later in life (my professional specialty is not China; I read it in translation). It started because I wanted to be able to teach it to my students, but now I am really just a fan. I must say that it does really speak to me.
hence net net
I resonated with existentialism in literature but did not study it...maybe a little Kierkegaard.
Years later...after exposure to more Eastern practice (which I think influenced the next circular journey) ...I was working backwards through cog science ( how do my children learn and what can I do about it?) and linguistics/deconstruction and came across Merleau Ponty ( who has roots in Husserl and Sassure).
for me that rendered skepticism a "practice" much like meditation...a discipline to segregate thoughts and parse (notice the connection to linguistics) emotions and "primitive" influences out to find a purer truth.
BTW, not sure if you've seen the book discussed below, but it's on my desk right now. Looking forward to getting to it.
Link - ( New Window )