How can you describe in simple terms Descartes dubiom methodicum? or the methodical doubt?

Question

How can you describe in simple terms Descartes dubiom methodicum? or the methodical doubt?

Answer 1

very simple dont trust anything, because you really dont know anything.                        not literally but the idea is not to trust anything in your existence because that itself is questionable

Answer 2

"Descartes began with the basic epistemological [ ] premise he shared explicitly with Augustine: “the prior certainty of consciousness,” the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction from the contents of one’s consciousness —which means: the concept of consciousness as some faculty other than the faculty of perception—which means: the indiscriminate contents of one’s consciousness as the irreducible primary and absolute, to which reality has to conform. What followed was the grotesquely tragic spectacle of philosophers struggling to prove the existence of an external world by staring, with the Witch Doctor’s blind, inward stare, at the random twists of their conceptions—then of perceptions—then of sensations.

"Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.

"Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing." Ayn Rand

"In reason, certainty must precede doubt, just as a grasp of truth must precede the detection of error. To establish a claim to knowledge, what one must do is to prove an idea positively, on the basis of the full context of evidence available; i.e., a man must prove that he is right. It is not incumbent on anyone—nor is it possible—to prove that he is not wrong, when no evidence of error has been offered."

Leonard Peikoff,  Ã¢Â€ÂœÃ¢Â€Â˜Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum,

April 1981,

Answer 3

You ever get in an argument without someone who was so combative, they refused to believe anything you used to prove your point, even though it was obviously true (like, "Hitler was bad" or "John Lennon is dead")?  Someone who wouldn't grant anything that could support your opinion on the point in contention?  

That's Descartes in a nutshell, only he's arguing with himself.