"Can I Prove I'm not Delusional?"

Not a case of delusion; instead it's a case where people with properly functioning faculties are in a cognitive environment uncongenial for producing true beliefs (i.e. hooked into the Matrix).  But a great film nonetheless which raises the question of global skepticism. 

Jay asks whether I can prove I'm not delusional.  Presumably he has in mind whether one can prove that one is not delusional (and he's not wondering whether I'm delusional).

What it is to prove something?  In one sense it is to give a proof--to give an argument.  Here is an argument that I am not delusional:

I am not delusional.
Thus, I am not delusional.

The argument is valid (p, thus p).  And if the first premise is true then the argument is also sound.  But of course it begs the question.  What one would like is a sound (or cogent) argument the premises of which are (at least initially) more obvious than the conclusion.

Can any such proof be given?  I wouldn't know what the proof would be.

Someone who is (seriously) delusional has cognitive faculties which are unreliable in forming true beliefs.  A seriously delusional person might believe that he is an egg, that the earth is the sky, that 2+2=5, that his cognitive faculties are functioning properly when indeed they are not, etc.

Suppose one tried the following inductive argument:
1. Yesterday I saw a building.
2. The day before I saw the same building.
3. The day before that I saw the same building.
[...]
8.  My friend Jack tells me he saw the same building.
9.  My friend Jill reports that there is a building in that very location.
[...]
15. So my faculty of sight is properly functioning.

But a problem arises.  In 1-3 I am assuming that my faculty of sight is working properly.  In 8-9 I am assuming that my faculty of testimony is functioning properly.   (Moreover, in presenting an argument I assume that my faculty of inference is reliable.) Of course I could use my faculties of touch and smell to validate that my faculty of sight is reliable.  But then I enter into an epistemic circle assuming one sense faculty is reliable in proving that the others are reliable. In short, in giving any proof that I am not delusional I must tacitly assume that at least some segment of my cognitive faculties are functioning properly.

The question is whether this sort of circularity is malignant or benign.

Dealing with "Who's to say?itis"

[...]
Unenlightened Product of the "Enlightenment": "But who's to say?"
Theist: "God."
U: "Who's to say God says?!"
T: "God."
U: "But who's to say that?!"
T: "Me."
U: "Huh?"
T: "Look, do you have any interesting questions?"
U: "Those were interesting questions!"
T: "Who's to say?"

I'm a Cynic of This Study on Cynicism's Link to Dementia

This study is an excellent example of why I tend to be cynical of headlines and reporters telling me about health and science.  One might easily get the impression that one should shun philosophy (and religion?) from the first line of the article:

"Cynics are three times more likely to develop dementia than those who have faith in humanity, a study has shown."

Wow.  A study has SHOWN that cynics are three times more likely to develop dementia than those who have faith in humanity.  I'm interested!  Please say more...

Academics asked nearly 1,500 people with an average age of 71 to fill out a questionnaire to measure their levels of cynicism.

They were asked how much they agreed with statements such as “I think most people would lie to get ahead”, “it is safer to trust nobody” and “most people will use somewhat unfair reasons to gain profit or an advantage rather than lose it.”

So having common sense and believing in original sin will turn you crazy, eh?  Let's read on....

Those taking part were monitored for eight years, during which time 46 of them were diagnosed with dementia. 

Well, 46 out of 1500 ain't bad.  I'm liking my chances!!

Of the 164 people with high levels of cynicism, 14 people developed dementia, compared with nine of the 212 people with low levels of cynicism.

14 out of 164 out of 1500??  Compared to nine out of 212 out of 1500???  [Why write out 'nine' instead of using the numeral '9' when all the other numbers are expressed as numerals?] So FIVE more people in the cynical group developed dementia. How do the moderately cynical fair, I wonder?  How about a healthy dose of cynicism?  I'm REALLY liking my chances!

The last sentence of the article doesn't exactly reflect the first sentence:

Dr. Doug Brown, of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “While this research attempts to make a link between higher levels of cynical distrust and risk of dementia, there were far too few people in this study that actually developed dementia to be able to draw any firm conclusions.

WHY did I waste me time reading this article?  And why did YOU waste your time reading this blog post?