How do skeptics argue against rationalism?

Skeptics argue against rationalism by challenging the notion that reason alone can provide us with certain knowledge or truth. They question the reliability and limitations of human reason, emphasizing that our cognitive abilities are fallible and prone to biases and errors.

One of the main arguments put forth by skeptics is the problem of induction. They argue that rationalism relies heavily on inductive reasoning, which involves making generalizations based on limited observations or experiences. Skeptics contend that this method is inherently flawed because it assumes that the future will resemble the past, which cannot be proven with certainty. They highlight the possibility of encountering new evidence that contradicts our previous observations, rendering our rational conclusions uncertain.

Furthermore, skeptics challenge the idea that reason alone can provide us with access to objective reality. They argue that our perceptions and interpretations of the world are subjective and influenced by various factors such as cultural, social, and personal biases. Skeptics contend that our reasoning processes are shaped by these subjective factors, making it difficult to claim that reason alone can lead us to objective truths.

Another line of argumentation employed by skeptics is the problem of infinite regress. They question the rationalist belief in the existence of innate ideas or principles that serve as the foundation for knowledge. Skeptics argue that if we claim that certain knowledge is based on innate ideas, then we must explain the origin and justification of these ideas. This leads to an infinite regress, as each explanation would require further justification, ultimately undermining the rationalist's claim to certain knowledge.

In summary, skeptics argue against rationalism by challenging the reliability of human reason, highlighting the limitations of inductive reasoning, questioning the objectivity of our perceptions, and raising concerns about the problem of infinite regress. They advocate for a more cautious and humble approach to knowledge, emphasizing the need for critical examination and empirical evidence to support our beliefs.