Moore's Argument For The Proof Of The External World

One of the main questions surrounding the academic of Philosophy is in relation to the external world and its existence. Ever since Descartes Meditations, philosophers have long been engaged in discussion regarding whether the existence of the external world can be proven. On one hand, skeptics’ claim that one cannot know for certain whether the external world exists given that there is no proof thereof. Skeptics’ declare that one cannot begin to know anything about the external world as there is no way of distinguishing between reality and dreams. On the other hand, however, Philosopher G.E. Moore argues that there is a way to prove the existence of the external world, and that just because one cannot prove something, that necessarily doesn’t
Moore’s argument for the proof of the existence of the external world is as follows: (P1) here is one hand, (2) here is another hand, (C1) there now exists two hands, (C2) therefore, external objects exist (Citation needed). Moore states that this argument of his isn’t just a proof of an external world, but a rigorous proof. Now, for an argument to be categorized as a rigorous proof, Moore states that it has to satisfy the three following criteria: (1) the premise has to be different from the conclusion, (2) if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true as well, (3) one has to know the premise to be true (Citation needed). When one examines Moore’s argument, it is vividly clear the premises are different from the conclusions, given that in his premises, he refers to hands specifically by stating “here is one hand”, “here is another hand”, whereas in the conclusions he merely states that “two hands exist at this moment” (Citation needed). Thus, it can be seen that, in this case, even if the premises were to be false, the conclusion would still hold true given that there still exist many hands therefore making the premises and the conclusion distinct. Furthermore, he also states that his argument meets the second criteria since he is holding both hands and he knows at that moment that he is holding both hands given that he utters the word “here” twice, and therefore making it impossible to be any more certain. Finally, he states that his argument meets the last
Now, your argument is that there is a pen. The skeptic however argues you do not know that there is a pencil with certainty: (1) You do not know that ‘there is a pencil’ immediately, (2) That ‘there is a pencil’ does not follow logically from anything you do know, (3) If (1) and (2) are true, then if I know that ‘there is a pencil’ it is only through analogy or inference, (4) What is based on analogy or inference cannot be certain knowledge. In light of this argument, which of these argument is to be more likely; that there is a pencil right in front of you or knowing the four assumptions made by skeptics? It is extremely clear that the former is obviously likelier based on common sense. Similarly, with Moore’s argument of “here is one hand” “here is another hand”, Moore knowing that there is hand in front of him is much likelier than Moore not