*a proof*that there are two hands (and hence that there are external objects, and hence an external world), which was that he could similarly prove that there were three misprints on a certain page by:

Maddy 2017: 164 (Moore 1939: 147) Although of course, while that proves that there aretaking the book, turning to the page, and pointing to three separate places on it, saying 'There's one misprint here, another here, and another here'

*three*misprints, it does not prove that there are three

*misprints*. And while you might agree with Moore that those were misprints, that would not amount to a

*proof*that they were. Moore, you will recall, does not have to show that there are

*two*hands, nor even that there are two

*hands*, he has to show the externality (so to speak) of such things as hands, given skeptical doubts, which is more like having to

*prove*not just assume, that it is indeed a

*bad*thing to have lots of misprints. And of course, why would we have to

*prove*such a thing! Ask yourself what is

*meant by*"external world" to see for yourself how it exists

*by definition*(and note how one gestures as one does so). And yet, it is precisely that "proof" that is challenged by skeptical doubts (as the above-linked-to review of Maddy 2017 observes).

## No comments:

Post a Comment