Brains in vats and semantic externalism: a new response to the skeptical argument

Abstract It has been argued that since we cannot rule out that we are eternal brains in vats ( BIV s) whose sensory impressions are generated by a supercomputer and who can thus be assumed to exist in a world where (almost) nothing is as it seems, most (or almost all) of our empirical beliefs are such that we cannot rule out that they are false. Since fallible knowledge seems to be a contradiction in terms, it has been concluded that we have much less empirical knowledge than we would normally assume and that sound empirical knowledge might even be impossible. This is the skeptical argument. Starting from semantic externalism, various arguments have been proposed to rule out the possibility that we are BIV s. In this paper, I will argue that trying to rule out the possibility of being a BIV is a very weak response to the skeptical argument, as it accepts the challenge raised by the skeptic, i.e. that in order to have empirical knowledge, we have to exclude the possibility that we are BIV s. In fact, we will see that starting from semantic externalism, a much stronger response is possible. Accordingly, we do not have to rule out that we are BIV s in order for the skeptical argument to contain a false premise.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05107-2
Primary Topic
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Brains in vats and semantic externalism: a new response to the skeptical argument

Stefan Rinner
Synthese
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
article

Brains in vats and semantic externalism: a new response to the skeptical argument

Stefan Rinner
article en

Abstract

Abstract It has been argued that since we cannot rule out that we are eternal brains in vats ( BIV s) whose sensory impressions are generated by a supercomputer and who can thus be assumed to exist in a world where (almost) nothing is as it seems, most (or almost all) of our empirical beliefs are such that we cannot rule out that they are false. Since fallible knowledge seems to be a contradiction in terms, it has been concluded that we have much less empirical knowledge than we would normally assume and that sound empirical knowledge might even be impossible. This is the skeptical argument. Starting from semantic externalism, various arguments have been proposed to rule out the possibility that we are BIV s. In this paper, I will argue that trying to rule out the possibility of being a BIV is a very weak response to the skeptical argument, as it accepts the challenge raised by the skeptic, i.e. that in order to have empirical knowledge, we have to exclude the possibility that we are BIV s. In fact, we will see that starting from semantic externalism, a much stronger response is possible. Accordingly, we do not have to rule out that we are BIV s in order for the skeptical argument to contain a false premise.

SyntheseVol. 206(1)
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Brains in vats and semantic externalism: a new response to the skeptical argument — Stefan Rinner · Synthese (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS