[cross-posted at Mises Blog]

Philosopher John Searle has recently argued that the progress of empirical science has now made possible a"new kind of philosophy" no longer beset by the skeptical doubts that worried Descartes and Hume. I agree that philosophers needn't be troubled by such skeptical doubts, but I don't think the case against skepticism depends in any way on the progress of empirical science; on the contrary, we can take empirical science seriously in the first place only because we already have grounds for rejecting skepticism. See my discussion, which also touches on such topics as praxeology and socialist calculation, here.