In many cases it might not be possible to have direct evidence to conclude intention/action of a person. Only circumstantial evidence may be available. From position of a skeptic, is it right to deduce the intention of a person or actual action of a person from strong circumstantial evidence? Is there anything written about it or said about it? Or is it a matter of subjective opinion?

  • Depending upon the version of skepticism this has a wide range of answers. The simplest is Sextus Empiricus's: Since intention is always something that one can never clearly ascertain -- even when it is stated it is often misleading -- the only just approach is to leave decisions about it unresolved, and find other ways to decide one's path. But I am not sure he is the kind of skeptic you have in mind.
    – user9166
    Jun 29 '16 at 22:50
  • Thanks for directing me. I was sure that this would be the case in the hard and pure skepticism like that of Empiricus but mainly I want to know whether it is right to do this on the pragmatic or practical skepticism that many people choose to follow now to decide their beliefs (skepticism as a tool rather than philosophy). I know I am sounding vague. Anyways, thanks!
    – IsThatTrue
    Jun 30 '16 at 19:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.