Abstract

The article concerns the tenability of sceptical arguments against the possibility of empirical knowledge of the external world. In the first place, I distinguish between arguments from actual error and arguments from possible error. It may seem that arguments from actual error are all self-defeating, because they are based on the very belief that they criticize. In the second place, I propose a new argument, the argument from unspecified actual error, or argument of the oasis, which I hold to be tenable.