So, the outsider sceptic holds that even if most...

So, the outsider sceptic holds that even if most philosophers are justified in accepting their different views, a person who lacks philosophical beliefs ought to refrain from using philosophical methodology and instead should remain agnostic. Suppose an uncommitted person, one who is currently agnostic about basic philosophical questions, wishes to discover the true answers to these philosophical questions. She is also equally concerned to avoid false answers.

She is thus willing to stop being agnostic and come to believe a doctrine provided she does so via a reliable method. For her, a reliable method is one that is at least more likely than not to give her true beliefs. If these are her goals, it is difficult to show that philosophy as we do it would be worth doing. She might as well remain agnostic.

This is not to say that we philosophers must give up our doctrines and become agnostics ourselves, but merely that a truth-seeking, error-avoiding agnostic does not have good reason to pursue philosophy in the attempt to discover the truth about philosophical questions. This paper argues that the presence of widespread dissensus makes it difficult to defend philosophy from outsider scepticism, if not insider scepticism. There are many reasons why philosophy is worth doing.

Yet, it would be disturbing if we cannot show the agnostic that philosophy gets her the right type of value - true answers to philosophical questions. Previous…