1. Space scepticism
1.1. Universe has 1m radius: What goes on inside is indistinguishable from what would happen if it were very large
1.1.1. The argument would fail because my expression 1m does refer to distances of 1m. The person in the above scenario would not mean the same thing as us.
1.1.2. There is a cut off point for the scenario as the Putnam argument is vague.
2. A development by Button
2.1. Premise 1: Semantic Externalism Premise 2: Disquotation (saying what we mean. Dog = dog)
2.1.1. Reference failure (Referring to Vulcan the planet has no corresponding entity)
2.2. A development by Button
3. Disquotation
3.1. Saying what we mean
3.1.1. Using Disquotation is also begging the question because it lacks support needed to base sound conclusion on it
3.2. Doesn't refute skeptic as she needs to use the word brain too.
4. Cartesian & Kantian Scepticism
4.1. The objects we think about are constructions whose existence is partly determined by our own minds
4.1.1. Worry is not that we might be BIV but that the content of our thought no longer reaches out as far as we thought it did.
4.2. Response to this sort of scepticism
4.2.1. The reality that the Kantian sceptic pines is unknowable and unthinkable. Unthinkable concerns don't concern us.
4.2.1.1. Modifications to the sceptic scenario and what they tell us:
5. Over-the-shoulder-scepticism
5.1. Crispin Wright
5.1.1. The BIV cannot understand it's own predicament
5.1.2. A creature is looking down on us: dead-sober-scepticism: MEGABRAIN.
5.2. 2 Interpretations
5.2.1. We might be to MEGABRAIN as the images of brains are to BIV. Rule this out easily: Images of brains aren't thinking and we in good world are
5.2.2. MEGABRAIN has vastly superior view. We are ignorant in comparison. But the relationship is much like between a fool and someone wise.
5.3. No scepticle argument
6. Hidden natures
6.1. As a response to Disquotation
6.1.1. Doesn't refute skeptic as she needs to presuppose that hidden nature is as it is for non-sceptic
7. Past scepticism
7.1. The past began just over 1 second ago
7.1.1. Does this undermine the refutation or just show that there is a vague cut off point?
8. Vats in space
8.1. Deference: there are many conditions for this. Like if we were to move to an new envatted earth would we be able to reference the word brain? This is again vague.
9. 2 more deference cases
9.1. Release: All beings have been envatted but then they are releasedand given real bodies
9.1.1. Capture: All beings have been free but are then envatted
10. Conclusion
10.1. Vaguesness and Empathy
10.1.1. John Hawthorne argued that the fact that the cut-off was vague shows the whole argument strategy to be misguided.
10.1.1.1. Button's response is that it is a tolerable vagueness