During philosophy classes, I found that learning about skepticism was very interesting. The reason I chose this is because if I liked learning about the topic, writing an article would be fun. Skepticism is the superior epistemological position because there is no way to prove that we know anything. What knowledge is exactly is "Realizing that you know something when you know it, and realizing that you don't know it when you don't know it...". In this article I will argue that other beliefs about knowledge cannot be proven. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay So, some may wonder what is skepticism? Skepticism is the philosophical view that no one knows anything. To discuss skepticism, you need to know the skeptical hypothesis. This is a hypothetical situation where you pretend not to know what you actually know. For example, you think you believe your phone is with you and you think it's vibrating in your pocket, but it turns out you check your pocket and actually find that your phone isn't even on you. This is just one scenario, but there are many examples of cases where we think we know something, but we're wrong. Therefore, it is not unusual to believe that you know nothing. Additionally, there is an idea called the two-world assumption. There are two statements here. These state that “there is an external world – that is, a world beyond our beliefs and experiences, which is not influenced by what we happen to believe about it, and we can never come into direct contact with the world itself but only with the contents of our minds – with our ideas, our beliefs, our various experiences, and the principles we hold to be necessary truths.” There are many cases where we mistakenly remember things and cannot know for sure whether they correspond to the world. In summary, our world of experience does not correspond to the real world itself, so it is best to assume that we know nothing. There are four main varieties of skepticism. Skepticism about God, causality, other minds, and the outside world. In skepticism about God, theists ponder how we can know that God does not have a justifying reason for allowing the evils we observe. “Likewise, we cannot know that God lacks a justifying reason for allowing the evils we observe.” There are several popular arguments that have to do with skepticism. Descartes wonders whether we are constantly dreaming at all times. However, he responds by saying that God would not deceive him, so he can know the world after all. It's unlikely, but when we dream we never know we're dreaming, so it's possible. Another famous philosopher, David Hume, explains that the most basic principles of our life are without justification and that we never see the cause of events, but only that two events come together. Basically, what Hume is trying to say is that the things we think we know for sure cannot be explained through experience or reason alone. There is no way to actually observe causality. The last philosopher who plays an important role in the development of this ideal is Hume's successor, Immanuel Kant. Kant suggests that the world we know is only the world of our experiences. He calls it synthetic a priori because, like all necessary truths, it is prior to experience. There are several cases in which we, with friends or family, try to remember past situations. However, it always seems like we can never agree on how events really happened. With this information, we cannot rule out the possibility of not knowing anything. Some might say that if we know the worldthrough our experiences, then we know our experiences. However, these experiences could be false due to the brain in a vat theory. To summarize, this theory states that one cannot rule out this possibility that you are a brain connected to a machine that is fed with created memories and experiences. Furthermore, these BIVs are actually being created now. These brains were created very similarly to the brains of 3-month-old fetuses. A common rejection of this theory is: if S knows that P, then there is no possible world in which S falsely believes that P exists. However, brain organoids exist, so there are possible worlds in which we are BIV. Therefore, there may be a world in which S believes that P exists. Another popular case similar to the brain in a vat is the Cogito or demon. The way it starts is that not even a demon could make you think “I am thinking” and make that thought false. The rest of the argument then says, “Then, therefore, you know for sure that you are thinking. If you are thinking, it follows that you exist. 'I think, therefore I exist.' This theory was formulated by the philosopher Descartes and asks whether it is possible that a demon or supervillain is using their talents to insert false memories into the brain. Empiricists would not be able to defend themselves against this argument because they believe that knowledge is based on the senses. However, the skeptic argues that if you base things on your senses, then you know nothing. Especially now that it has been proven that the real Brain in Vat can exist. There are many who dispute the views of skeptics and believe that there are things we can know. For example, the beliefs of Neo-Mooreanism advanced by GE Moore. His famous objection to skepticism is that we have hands and we know we have hands. However, in the article “There Are Actual Brain in Vats Now,” by Adam Michael Bricker, he explains that this is no longer a valid answer. BIVs already exist. Bricker explains that “there will soon be conscious BIVs, and there is already talk of linking 'numerous human organoids into functioning complexes' in the near future. At first, this was not a very strong response to skepticism, and now with the creation of brain organoids it proves that having hands does not prove that we exist anymore. There is an article titled “Skeptical Theism and Skepticism about the external world,” by Stephen Law that rejects the skeptics' belief. In the skeptical hypothesis known as Olly's orange, imagine that there is an orange on the table, now imagine that there is a man named Olly who is projecting an image of the orange onto the table. Do you really know for sure that there is an orange there on the table? He responds to this by saying that it is “reasonable for us to believe that the things are perceptually as they appear, since I have a good basis for accepting, and I accept, that (i) there is a being easily capable of perceptually deceiving me…”. argument relies too much on the senses that you make an argument based on your senses, you are wrong. Furthermore, it is not known whether the orange is there, whether Olly is projecting an image of the orange there, or whether you are simply a brain receiving signals of the appearance of a. 'orange. Therefore you can only say that you don't know what is appearing in front of you or if there is really anything there. In the same article, skeptics claim that it is not known why God allows evil to exist. The Law, however, responds that "we can also know at least some of God's reasons through some form of direct divine revelation". However, this cannot be known because we are not always sure what God asks of us. We can make an educated guess and try to serve Him, yet we don't know what exactly God wants. Furthermore, Law's argument relies too heavily on religion. It's also best to be skeptical about why.