moralobjectivity.net concept pages: copyright Robert Ellis 2011

Sceptical slippage

Sceptical slippage is the term I have coined for the tendency for agnostic scepticism to insensibly become negative metaphysics. This tendency is not an inevitable process, but it can often be observed in thinking which begins with sceptical arguments. It can be seen, for example, in the ways that agnosticism about God is appropriated by atheists, the way that compatibilists (who are actually determinists) try to take the agnostic ground in the debate about freewill, or the way that Wittgensteinians adopt representationalist assumptions to support what they think of as a pragmatist position. It can be seen quite frequently in political debate, where a politician assumes that a point against his opponent is a point in favour of his own position.

Sceptical slippage tends to occur for a variety of (possibly overlapping) reasons:

• Sceptical arguments are often used selectively. It's easy to be sceptical about a few beliefs that one is opposed to, but very often the same scepticism is not applied to one's own position, and thus that position remains metaphysical. One good example of this is atheistic arguments against theism. Atheists attack the metaphysical assumptions made when people believe in God, but fail to reflect that the denial of God's existence involves going just as far beyond our experience as its affirmation.
• Agnosticism about a positive metaphysical claim involves, on the face of it, denying that claim. The difference between denial and agnosticism is a subtle one, which depends very much on the motives with which one denies. Is one denying in order to reach a more provisional position examinable through experience, or in order to reach another 'true' position? Often this distinction in motives only becomes clear later, when an apparently agnostic position is used to draw negative metaphysical conclusions. Many thinkers do not appreciate the psychological aspects of this distinction and thus either thoughtlessly or deliberately confuse the two.
• Both positive and negative metaphysicians rightly perceive agnosticism as a threat. Sometimes they enter into an unholy alliance against it, insisting that their dualistic model is the only way of thinking about the subject. Politicians, religious leaders and even philosophers would often rather have a clear 'enemy' to revile (and thus gain group support from a shared hatred) than engage with the more difficult arguments of those who criticise their dualistic assumptions.
• To avoid sceptical slippage requires a dialectical form of argument in which one is prepared to acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses on both sides. This form of argument is more complex and difficult than adversarial argument. Dialectic has also been given a bad name after its abuse with dogmatic assumptions by Marxists and Hegelians.

Links to related discussion

Features of nihilism (from thesis)

The classical roots of nihilism (from thesis)

Hegel (from thesis)

Marx (from thesis)

Return to concepts page