Introduction: Why Question What We Know?

Good afternoon, everyone. Today, we’ll be exploring some big questions from philosophy: How
can we be sure of anything? What does it really mean to know something? And—perhaps most
importantly—do we have moral responsibilities about what we choose to believe?

Our focus is on topics drawn from Peter Millican’s General Philosophy lecture 5.4 at Oxford:
Scepticism, Externalism, and the Ethics of Belief2. We’ll walk through key ideas using simple
language and relatable examples, so by the end, not only will you understand these deep
philosophical debates, but you’ll also see how they shape the way we should think in everyday
life.

What is Scepticism? Why Is it a Problem?

Let’s start with scepticism. Philosophical scepticism is the attitude of questioning what people
claim to know. In ordinary life, being skeptical usually just means you don’t readily believe
everything you’re told. But philosophical scepticism goes further: it asks whether we really know
anything at all, especially about the world around us5.

Think back to times when you’ve wondered if something was too good to be true—maybe a
news article online or a weird email promising a prize. That's everyday skepticism. But
philosophers like René Descartes take this further: Can I even tell if I’m awake or only dreaming
right now? Could I be mistaken about the most basic facts—like having two hands? Or, as in the
famous "brain in a vat" scenario, is it possible I’m just a brain hooked up to a computer, being
fed artificial experiences while nothing I see or touch is real810?

These examples are called skeptical thought experiments:

●​ The Dream Argument: Maybe this is all a dream, and nothing is really happening.
●​ Evil Demon or Brain in a Vat: Maybe some powerful force or a scientist is tricking me so
everything I experience is fake8.
●​ The Matrix: The movie is a modern version of these worries, where everyone lives in a
virtual world without realizing it.

These ideas might sound far-fetched, but they show a serious problem: if I can’t prove I’m not
being deceived, how can I trust my experiences and knowledge about the world?

Philosophers separate scepticism into a few types to help us focus our discussions:

Type Description Example

 Global Skepticism Doubts whether we can know anything “Am I a brain in a vat?”
at all

Local Skepticism Doubts knowledge in a certain area “Can we really know what’s
(e.g., morality or religion) morally right?”

Practical Applies to daily doubts and inquiry; “Is this website’s news
Scepticism focuses on critical questioning reliable?”

Philosophical Examines the possibility of knowledge, "How do I know I am not

Scepticism not just particular instances constantly dreaming?"

So, scepticism isn’t just about doubting for the sake of doubt. It’s about asking: What, if
anything, can be known with certainty?

The Challenge of Skeptical Thought Experiments

Let’s dig a little deeper into the skeptical challenges:

1. Brain in a Vat

Imagine you’re just a brain, removed from your body, floating in a vat, and connected to a
super-advanced computer. This computer sends you signals that exactly mimic the experiences
you’d have in the real world. If you were a brain in a vat, everything would seem just as it does
now, but it would all be an illusion810.

Could you ever know you’re not in this situation? The point is not that we actually are brains in
vats, but that we can’t seem to rule out the possibility. If so, how can we claim to know anything
about what’s really “out there”?

2. The Dream Argument

Have you ever woken up from a dream that felt so real you questioned if you were still
dreaming? Descartes used this idea to show that our senses can’t always be trusted—what
feels real could be imagined.

3. Evil Demon Hypothesis

Descartes also asked: what if a powerful, evil demon is deceiving me about everything? This
pushes skepticism to its limits—maybe all my basic beliefs (about having hands, about math,
about the world) could be manipulated by a force I can’t detect.

These scenarios challenge the way we justify knowledge and push us to clarify what it really
means to “know”.
How Do We Respond to Scepticism? Internalism vs.
Externalism
So, how do philosophers try to solve the sceptical challenge? The debate focuses on what
counts as a good reason or justification for our beliefs. Here, we come to a key divide:
Internalism vs. Externalism131517.

Let’s look at each and see how they play into the sceptical debate.

What is Epistemic Justification?

Before defining the camps, remember: To know something, you need not just belief and truth,
but a third thing: justification. That is, a good reason—what philosophers call epistemic
justification—explains why your belief connects to reality13.

Classical Analysis: “Justified True Belief” (JTB)

●​ Belief: You believe it.

●​ Truth: It’s actually true.
●​ Justification: You have good reasons or evidence for it.

But as the Gettier Problem (see below) shows, even justified, true beliefs aren’t always
knowledge—sometimes it’s just luck. This is important because it sets the stage for more
debate.

Epistemic Internalism

Internalism says that whether a belief is justified must depend only on factors internal to the
believer—the reasons and evidence you can access by thinking about your mind and
experiences.

In Simple Terms

●​ If you believe you have an apple in your hand, internalism says your justification
depends on your experience—what you see, feel, remember, or reason about.
●​ You need to be able to reflect—mentally—to find the reasons for your belief. If someone
asks, “Why do you believe that?” you should be able to answer by describing your
mental states (like, “I see the apple; I remember picking it up”).

Why Internalism?

1.​ Transparency: You should be able to know your own justifying reasons. If you can’t
explain them—even to yourself—how are they your reasons?
 2.​ Responsibility: We are blamed or praised for our beliefs based on the evidence we’ve
considered. Internalists link justification to intellectual duty or epistemic responsibility: it’s
about how carefully and responsibly we form our beliefs.

Example

Suppose Norman just knows, without any evidence, that the President is in New York. Even if
he’s somehow correct (say he has a mysterious “clairvoyant power” that happens to be reliable),
if Norman has no evidence or accessible reasons, internalists say he’s not justified.

Internalism and the Regress Problem

A major challenge for internalism is the “regress problem”: If every belief must be backed by
another belief, does this go on forever? Internalists respond with:

●​ Foundationalism: Some beliefs are basic and don’t need further justification (like “I
exist” or “I am thinking”).
●​ Coherentism: Beliefs are justified by how well they fit together in a web, not by an
infinite chain16.

Epistemic Externalism

Externalism claims that justification can also depend on factors outside the believer’s
awareness—namely, the reliability of how a belief was formed, even if the person has no idea
about these factors1719.

In Simple Terms

●​ If you believe there’s a tree outside because you see one, externalists say your belief
can be justified even if you can’t prove your sight is reliable or explain the details. What
matters is that your belief was actually formed by a method (like visual perception) that
reliably leads to truth.
●​ Externalists point out that young children, animals, or people who can’t explain their
reasons can still have knowledge.

Why Externalism?

1.​ Truth Connection: Justification should be about what connects a belief to reality. If your
process reliably tracks the truth (e.g., seeing, reliable memory), that’s enough—even if
you can’t explain the details.
2.​ Practicality: Many day-to-day beliefs are formed without careful reflection or analysis,
but they’re still reliable (e.g., recognizing a friend’s face).
3.​ Stopping the Regress: Reliable methods can halt the infinite chain of reasons—a
reliable process itself is enough for justification, without needing endless additional
beliefs.
Example

If you use a thermometer to check a room’s temperature, your belief about the temperature is
justified if the thermometer is reliable, regardless of whether you understand its inner workings
or have evidence about it. What matters is the link between your belief and reality, not whether
you can explain that link21.

Externalism and Scepticism

Externalists often challenge some skeptical arguments by saying that we don’t need special,
internal proof that our perception is reliable—if it is, that’s enough for knowledge, even if the
possibility of being deceived can’t be ruled out in every case.

Comparing Internalism and Externalism: Side by Side

Aspect Internalism Externalism

Source of Accessible mental states and Factors beyond awareness: reliable

Justification reasons processes, causal links

Responsibility You’re responsible for what you What matters is objective reliability,
can reflect on/explain not introspective access

Regress Problem Basic beliefs or coherent webs Reliable process halts regress, even
Solution without awareness

Everyday Example A belief is justified if you know A belief is justified if your method
why you trust it tends to get things right

The Gettier Problem and Why It Matters

Let’s not forget a key turning point in this debate: the Gettier Problem. Edmund Gettier in 1963
showed that “justified true belief” sometimes isn’t enough for knowledge: you can have a belief
that’s justified and true, but only by accident. For example:

●​ You look at a clock that says 3:00, and it really is 3:00. But the clock is actually broken
and just happens to be right now. You’re justified (you see the clock), your belief is true
(it’s 3:00), but do you really know what time it is? Most would say no—it’s luck.

Both internalist and externalist theories were developed in response to these kinds of
challenges—pushing philosophers to rethink what counts as knowledge, and, by extension, how
we deal with sceptical worries.

Reliabilism: An Externalist Solution

A popular version of externalism is called Reliabilism. Simply put, reliabilism says a belief is
justified if it’s produced by a reliable process—like clear sight, good memory, or sound
reasoning—that generally leads to true beliefs232126.

Key Features

●​ Focus on Process: The important thing is how the belief was formed.
●​ Unawareness Allowed: The person doesn’t have to know or explain why the process is
reliable. What matters is that it is.
●​ Causal Link: There must be a connection between the belief and the fact that makes it
true.

Example

If you can reliably tell whether it’s raining by looking out the window, your belief about the
weather is justified. Even if you’ve never considered how your eyesight works or whether your
window is clean, if the process generally works, it confers knowledge.

Strengths and Criticisms

●​ Strength: Matches common sense. We credit small children or animals with knowledge
even when they can't explain their beliefs.
●​ Criticism: Is it enough? If someone gets a true belief from a usually reliable process but
gets it right by accident this time—does that count as knowledge? What about cases
where people can’t tell when they’re being tricked (like in the “Fake Barn County” story,
where someone sees a real barn among many fake ones)?
●​ Internalist Pushback: It’s not enough that a process is reliable. People should at least
be able to reflect on the trustworthiness of their methods; otherwise, we risk calling too
many “lucky guesses” knowledge.

Bringing It Together: Scepticism, Externalism, and

Practical Life
Let’s pull these threads together. Philosophical scepticism pushes us to question the grounds for
our beliefs. Internalists argue that we need accessible, conscious reasons for confidence.
Externalists—and especially reliabilists—say what matters is whether the belief-forming process
in fact links us to truth, even if we can’t always explain why.

So—can scepticism be answered?

●​ Internalists have trouble ruling out sceptical scenarios (dreams, brains in vats) because,
no matter how careful or responsible you are, you might be wrong about everything if
you’re deceived.
 ●​ Externalists, by contrast, say that if your beliefs are formed by reliable processes in the
actual world, you can have knowledge—even if you can’t rule out the possibility of being
deceived in some parallel, far-fetched world26.

That doesn’t mean questions go away—the debate continues, with each side challenging the
other and inspiring further refinements.

The Ethics of Belief: Do We Have a Duty to Believe

Responsibly?
Finally, let’s consider the ethics of belief. This asks: Is it morally wrong to believe something
without evidence? Are we responsible for our beliefs in the same way we are for our actions?

Clifford’s Argument

William K. Clifford famously argued: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”28.

Shipowner Example

Clifford tells the story of a shipowner who convinces himself that his aging ship is safe, despite
evidence to the contrary. He ignores his doubts, lets the ship sail, and it sinks, killing people.
Whether or not the ship sinks, Clifford says, the owner did wrong—not because his belief turned
out badly, but because he formed it irresponsibly, without proper inquiry.

What does this mean?

●​ Clifford’s point: Belief isn’t just private. Our beliefs affect others and our actions.
Basing beliefs on poor evidence can do real harm.
●​ He claims we have a moral duty to believe responsibly, only on adequate evidence.

Objections and Replies

●​ Too Strict?: Critics argue that Clifford’s standard is too demanding. Sometimes we must
make decisions with limited evidence (in emergencies, relationships, or when evidence
is unavailable).
●​ Replies: Clifford says it’s not about certainty, just about proportioning belief to the
evidence at hand. Also, suspending judgment or acting cautiously is better than leaping
to belief without grounds29.

Everyday Relevance

Think about spreading rumors, believing conspiracy theories, or making decisions about health
or safety. Believing carelessly can cause harm to individuals and society.
Connecting Ethics of Belief to Scepticism and
Externalism
The ethics of belief links up with the sceptical debate and the question of epistemic
justification29.

●​ Internalists: Clifford's demand for reflection and evidence-access lines up naturally with
internalism—it’s all about what’s inside, accessible to the conscious mind.
●​ Externalists: Might object that sometimes the reliable processes that connect us to truth
are out of our conscious reach, so perhaps some justified beliefs are OK even if we can't
fully articulate our reasons.
●​ Tension: Can we really control what we believe? Some argue we can at least influence
our beliefs by seeking, ignoring, or reflecting on evidence. Others say we can’t simply
choose beliefs at will.

Moral Responsibility and Justification

●​ Clifford’s story highlights the social effects of careless beliefs.

●​ The debate continues over whether epistemic duties (being careful about truth,
evidence, and honesty in belief) line up completely with moral duties.

Examples and Analogies to Bring It Home

Let’s use some vivid analogies to clarify these complex ideas:

Scenario Philosophy Point Explanation

Thermometer Reliabilism/Externalism You trust a thermometer’s reading not because

Analogy you know how it works, but because it
generally gets it right. Similarly, reliabilism
justifies a belief if your “mental thermometer”
(perception, memory, etc.) usually works.

Broken Clock Gettier Problem A stopped clock shows 2:00. You look at it at
exactly 2:00. You believe “it’s 2:00,” with
evidence, and you’re right. But was your belief
really knowledge—or just luck?

Norman the Internalism vs. Norman, a reliable clairvoyant, believes the

Clairvoyant Externalism clash President is in NY with no evidence.
Internalists say he’s not justified (he can’t
explain it); externalists say maybe he is (the
process is reliable).
 Brain in a Vat & Scepticism The possibility you’re being deceived can’t be
Matrix eliminated by any evidence you possess. How
do you know you’re not plugged into a
simulation?

Fake Ethics of Belief Spreading unchecked claims might be easy

News/Rumor but is irresponsible. Failing to check sources
Example may lead to harm.

How Should We Present These Ideas in Class?

When giving an oral presentation on these topics:

1.​ Start with a relatable question: “How do you know you’re not dreaming right now?”
2.​ Give vivid, everyday examples: Dreams, unreliable clocks, thermometers, rumors, or
recognizing a friend’s face.
3.​ Explain key terms simply: Define scepticism, internalism, externalism, reliabilism, and
the ethics of belief.
4.​ Transition logically: Begin with the problem (scepticism), move to solutions
(internalism/externalism), then to applications (reliabilism and ethics of belief).
5.​ Use analogies and stories: They help make abstract points stick.
6.​ Conclude by tying it all together: Our beliefs shape how we act and affect others.
Thinking carefully isn’t just a mental game—it’s a social responsibility.

Conclusion: Why Does Any of This Matter?

Why should we care about these philosophical debates?

●​ Because beliefs guide actions, and actions shape lives and societies.
●​ Scepticism helps us spot gaps and avoid gullibility, but we need answers to act wisely.
●​ Internalism and externalism show us different ways to justify our beliefs—demanding
reflection or relying on reliable processes.
●​ Reliabilism offers a practical way to keep believing and acting sensibly, even when
ultimate certainty isn’t possible.
●​ Ethics of belief reminds us that what we believe matters—not just to us, but to
everyone around us.

So, next time you’re tempted to believe a story, spread a rumor, or accept something just
because it “feels true,” remember: Being justified is about more than just guessing right—it’s
about being responsible for the ways we seek, test, and hold onto beliefs.

Thank you for listening!