Dogmatism and Modesty Strategy

Dogmatism and Modesty Strategy response to the Basic Argument for Skepticism

 Skepticism is the philosophy that over-emphasizes doubts and relatively human knowledge by challenging the adequacy or reliability by questioning what principles they are based on or established. However, there are various ways to respond to contemporary scepticism, including denying al east one premise, denying the argument is valid, or reluctantly accepting the conclusion ((McCain 228). Classical skepticism promotes certain premises, with the significant being  (1) one does not have the justification for believing that they are deceived if one does not have justification for believing that they are massively deceived (Massey). The major approaches that are anti-skepticism include dogmatism and modest strategy.


According to Seaman, dogmatism is the ideology of unfounded positives regarding opinions and the arrogant assertion of opinions as truth (Sampson 8). Dogmatism is unseeing trust that arises from reasoning. Here, dogmatism is likely to support the philosophy of relativism. Dogmatism challenges the concept of skepticism that maintains that our common-sense view of the external world is not better than other skeptical competitors (Sampson 3). Dogmatisms claim those who believe our common-sense view is justified and appeals to abduction or inferences as to the best explanations. According to dogmatism, common sense is simpler than any skeptical alternative. Dogmatism distinctively refutes premise 1.

The approach focuses on the mechanism responsible for one perceptual experience. Here, a unique appeal to the perceptual justification for simple empirical premises is made that ‘if you believe you have anything from the external world, and claim have justification for believing based on the claim you are not massively deceived (Massey). The dogmatism response relies on the condition under which one becomes acquires know-how based on sensory experiences. The response dictates that external objects exist even if one cannot definitely eliminate the possibility of being wrong (Sampson 6 ). Unlike the principle of closure, that promotes autosuggestion, dogmatism rejects the requirement of sceptics that dictates skeptical hypothesis be definitely ruled out before asserting the eternal world exists.¬†

Modest Transcendental strategies are partly anti-empirical arguments that focus on enabling conditions of coherent experiences of possession or allowing some form of either knowledge or cognitive ability. In response to external world skepticism, modesty strategy encourages a concession that one cannot prove transcendentally of an external world. However, one can still believe in such a world or presuppose it as part of one’s world as a precondition for the coherent experience (Gava 454). The modest argument has the mandate to investigate the connection between the significant structural elements of our conceptual framework. These arguments establish a framework that reduces the skepticism through inconsistency or raises doubts on the abstract.

The anti-sceptical potential of modesty strategy makes them powerful by proving that otherwise can only be obtained through inductive reasoning or fallible experiences. The modesty assertion indicates that we are entitled to hold a belief; it is corrigible or invulnerable to correction (Gava 455). Notably, the modesty strategy is not a subject of verification and only seeks to illustrate that we must believe in a given manner rather than the world is in a given way. Hence, there is no gap in illustrating that the world must appear in a given way and eliminate the possibility that the world is different. Finally, while the principle of closure indicates that people tend if there is a break in an object, people tend to perceive the object as continuing a smooth pattern (Sampson 3). On the other hand, modest strategy begins with a compelling premise about thoughts, knowledge, and practice that exceeds sensory evidence and requires a comprehension of the innate modes of processing the sensory evidence.

Works Cited

Massey, D. (2019). Skepticism. Retrieved 22 March 2022,

Gava, Gabriele. “Kant, the third antinomy and transcendental arguments.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100.2 (2019): 453-481.

Sampson, Eric. “Moorean Arguments Against the Error Theory: A Defense.”

McCain, Kevin, and Ted Poston. “Two Strategies for Explaining Away Skepticism.” The Mystery of Skepticism. Brill, 2018. 227-239.