Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences

The meta-problem of self-reference: Cognitive sciences (psychology, neuroscience, linguistics) use the human mind to study the human mind. This creates a loop where the instrument of investigation is the same as the object under investigation. The hard problem is that any model the mind produces about itself is necessarily incomplete and shaped by the very cognitive biases, limitations, and structures it's trying to map. It's like a camera trying to take a perfect picture of its own lens—the act of observation changes and is constrained by the apparatus. We can never get a "view from outside" of cognition.

Example: A neuroscientist uses an fMRI machine (designed and operated by human brains) to study which brain regions activate during decision-making. The conclusions of the study are then processed, understood, and believed by other human brains. The hard problem: The entire epistemic chain is made of "brain stuff." If human cognition is systematically flawed in some way, that flaw would be baked into the scientific methods, instruments, and interpretations, making it invisible to us. We are using a potentially faulty compiler to debug its own source code. Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Skepticism

The infinite regress of doubt. Philosophical skepticism questions the reliability of all knowledge claims—senses, memory, reason. The hard problem is that this doubt must eventually apply to skepticism itself. If you doubt everything, on what foundation do you stand to announce your doubt? The skeptical argument is a tool that, when used universally, saws off the branch it's sitting on. This leads to the paralysis of aporia (a state of perpetual questioning with no answers) or a pragmatic, unprincipled exception where you arbitrarily stop doubting just to function, thereby abandoning the very rigor that defined skepticism.

Example: A radical skeptic says, "I can't trust my senses; I might be a brain in a vat." You ask, "Then how do you know the concept of a 'brain in a vat' is valid? How do you know logic itself is reliable?" They must use their untrustworthy reasoning to justify their doubt about reasoning. The hard problem: Pure skepticism is a mental black hole—it consumes every proposition, including the proposition that propositions should be consumed. To live, the skeptic must quietly assume the world is roughly as it seems, making their skepticism a theatrical performance for intellectual circles, not a livable philosophy. Hard Problem of Skepticism.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Debunking

The self-defeating irony that vigorously debunking a false or pseudoscientific claim can actually strengthen belief in it among its adherents. This happens through mechanisms like the backfire effect (where contradictory evidence causes people to double down), the perception of persecution (debunkers are seen as part of the conspiracy), and the reinforcement of community identity (outsider attacks increase in-group solidarity). The hard problem is that using reason and evidence against a belief system that rejects standard epistemology is like using a water gun to put out a grease fire—it just spreads the flames. The debunker's toolkit (logic, data, authority) is seen by believers as the very tools of the deception.

Example: You meticulously compile scientific studies, satellite photos, and pilot testimonies to debunk Flat Earth theory to a believer. They dismiss it all: the studies are by NASA shills, the photos are CGI, the pilots are in on it. Your effort is seen as proof of how deep the "globe conspiracy" goes. The hard problem: You cannot debunk a claim from outside a person's epistemic framework. Your facts are just more "fake news" to be filtered out. The more you fight the fantasy, the more real it feels to them, turning you into a villain in their narrative and cementing their belief. Hard Problem of Debunking.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026