Kerry asked:

What are some criticisms to Descartes's evil genius argument?

============

Is it an argument? Surely it is a thought experiment, designed to get us to expand our imaginations in
order to contemplate the implications of a world in which we could be deceived about absolutely
everything (except our own existence). These days we would probably prefer a science fiction
scenario, but in Descartes' day, inventing a powerful supernatural being served the same purpose.
One criticism of the move could be that he might have been a bit bolder and just called it God —
omniscient and omnipotent, but wicked. Introducing the evil demon allows him to keep the idea of
God uncontaminated. If his version of the Ontological Argument (the one that "proves" the existence
of a perfect, and therefore undeceiving, divinity) fails, as most philosophers think it does, he may
have left us with the possibility of an evil, less than perfect God who would be all too happy for us to
be fundamentally deceived.

Another criticism is that such widespread deception as that created by the Evil Demon, is not
possible, because the concept of error and deception has to be defined in relation to a general
background of authenticity and reliability. A forged bank note has to be identified against a
background of publicly recognised authentic ones. It just isn't possible for delusion about reality to be
the norm. What do you think of that argument? I'm not convinced by it.

Graham Nutbrown