Sceptical arguments in epistemology typically employ sceptical hypotheses, which are rivals to our everyday beliefs so constructed that they fit exactly the evidence on which those beliefs are based. There are two ways of using a sceptical hypothesis to undermine an everyday belief, giving rise to two distinct sorts of sceptical argument: underdetermination-based and closure-based. However, both sorts of argument, as usually formulated in the literature, fall foul of evidential holism, for they ignore the crucial role of background beliefs. An analogy with the philosophy of science makes this point explicit. There is no simple way to “holism proof” the two sceptical arguments.

中文翻译：

---

怀疑论、证据整体论和恶魔欺骗的逻辑

认识论中的怀疑论论证通常采用怀疑性假设，这些假设与我们的日常信念相竞争，其构建方式与这些信念所依据的证据完全相符。有两种方法可以使用怀疑性假设来破坏日常信念，从而产生两种不同类型的怀疑论：基于不确定性和基于封闭性。然而，正如文献中通常阐述的那样，这两种论证都与证据整体论相冲突，因为它们忽视了背景信念的关键作用。与科学哲学的类比使这一点变得明确。没有简单的方法可以“整体证明”这两个怀疑论点。