PhilArchive
open access
To reply or not to reply, that is the question: descriptive metaphysics and the sceptical challenge
How should one respond to scepticism? Should one seek to refute it? Or should scepticism be ignored? This paper argues that descriptive metaphysics occupies an intermediate logical space between truth-directed transcendental arguments aimed at refuting the sceptic and the quietist stance of the Humean naturalist who declines to take up the sceptical challenge. Descriptive metaphysics is neither quietist nor confrontational. It seeks to show, rather, that the sceptic is not a genuine partner in conversation.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Knowing When to Critique: Task-Adaptive Metacognitive Regulation for Reliable LLM Reasoning#1118403
- Scepticism, Infallibilism, Fallibilism#746161
- Metaphysics for Responsibility to Nature#87975
- Who’s Afraid of Conceptual Analysis?#101472
- Three Skeptics and the Critique: Review of Michael Forster's _Kant and Skepticism_#710805
Record · ID 716358
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive