I need some help with my philosophy homework. We were told to formulate our own skeptical hypothesis and use it as part of a radical skeptical argument, and that the skeptical hypothesis needs to be different from the usual examples (dreaming, virtual reality, BIV, etc). I've been thinking about it for a while but I couldn't really formulate any that is totally different from the examples given. Please do help if you can
So the purpose of the assignment isn't just to get you to come up with a "new" skeptical argument. By definition, anything we present you with isn't going to be anything that meets the requirement.
It's to get you to understand the qualities of the skeptical arguments you've been given so far, to enumerate those qualities, and to identify conditions that any "new" skeptical argument would need to meet. For example, one thing which your properties all have in common is that they in some way relate to sensory data - you're not receiving information from the outside world, but rather via some intermediating force on your brain (be it your own neurochemistry in dreaming, a computer program in virtual reality, or a malevolent spirit in the Cartesian Demon)
It's not necessarily the case that all skeptical arguments are about sense data, but you could maybe dream up some other examples that are. What other ways do we receive and process information, and how might you interfere with that mechanism to create a new scenario with reason to doubt the veracity of that information? E.g. visual information: "maybe someone's just projecting the world onto my eyes", auditory information: "what if I'm being followed around by a fleet of invisible noise-producing speaker robots in an otherwise silent reality"