Externalism and Internalism Flashcards
What is externalism?
The belief that there are factors beyond a person’s mind that can help them justify their beliefs so that their beliefs can become knowledge. uses process reliabilism
What is internalism?
Believes that all of the factors that we need to justify knowledge are already inside of our mind. Uses phenomenal conservatism
What is Process Reliabilism?
Is the belief formed by a prima facie reliable process? Can it provide prima facie justification?
What are the similarities between internalism and externalism?
both are concerned with seeking justification to form knowledge
Both are foundationalist theories
Neither uses skepticism (they both agree that be can know things)
What are the differences between internalism and externalism?
With internalism, all of the justifiers for your belief are in your mind whereas with externalism some of the facts of justification are outside of your mind
internalism focuses on the individuals perspective whereas externalism focuses on a broader perspective
internalism may be considered more demanding because it’s what we know with pure reflection and sometimes mere reflection is difficult (i.e., we may know that we know how to ride a bike, but it may be difficult to remember how we know we ride a bike) – Baker-Hytch believed this
What are examples where both process reliabilism and phenomenal conservation would agree are justified beliefs?
“I see a red apple”
Phenomenal conservatism would say that this is justified because it seems to me that there is a red apple and there is nothing acting as a defeater that may tell me there is not a red apple.
Process reliabilism would tell me that my process of seeing colors is generally reliable and therefore I am justified in believing that I see a red apple
____________________________________________
“I remember that my mom’s birthday is October 21st”
PC would say that it seems to us that this is true so we should believe it unless proven otherwise
PR would say that we’ve had a reliable process of remembering her birthday in the past so this process is reliable for justifying the belief that my moms birthday is October 21st.
What are examples where PC and PR would disagree about what’s a justified belief?
I’ve never predicted the accuracy of rain before, but I think: “it feels like it might rain”
PC would say that I am justified in believing this because it seems to me that it will rain. Until the information is presented to me (whether or not it actually rains) I am prima facie justified in believing that it might rain.
PR would say that I am not justified in this belief because I have never been able to accurately predict if it’s going to rain. Therefore, I am not justified in believing it’s going to rain by thinking “it feels like it might rain” when my process has never been reliable.
What are some objections with or problems with externalism?
The generality problem: what “counts” as a reliable process? You can take any belief and characterize the process very generally
Sheer luck: someone may just be really lucky in their reliable process and just happen to get something right every time
We must rely on things beyond us to obtain our knowledge — unlike internalists all of the justification we need is not in our mind
What is the generality problem?
what “counts” as a reliable process? You can take any belief and characterize the process very generally
Different descriptions can change how reliable we view a process as. The broader the description, the more generally reliable it will be. Hence: the generality problem.
What are some motivations for externalism?
Doesn’t rely on only justifiers to be in the mind
Anti-skeptic: it doesn’t claim that we have no knowledge
Doesn’t require you to explain how you know something to know that you know something
(I.e., even if you can’t explain how you know a language, you can still know a language because of your reliable process of the language)
How is religious belief supposed to (potentially) be justified according to externalist theories?
According to externalism, we know that there are factors beyond our mind that can help to justify our beliefs, so long as they have a reliable process.
Religious belief may be justified so long as you have arrived at it with a reliable process.
For example, if your Priest says all of these correct facts about the world, and says all of these correct facts about God, according to the externalist you are prima facie justified to believe the religious beliefs about God the priest presents. This is because you know that the Priest is correct about many other things, so believing the priest’s correct facts about God is a prima facie reliable process.
Another example may be: you believe that God is an all knowing being with great amounts of wisdom. You believe this because you’ve read the bible and the bible contains what you believe to be great amounts of knowledge in wisdom. Your process is reliable, and because you have a reliable process, the externalist says that you have prima facie justification for believing in this religious belief.
How may religious belief not be justified according to externalist theories?
A religious belief would not be justified, according to the externalist, if it did not come from a reliable process
For example, you may say you believe that God exists because you feel like you might be able to feel his presence due to the way the air tickles your ears. Even though you may have this belief, you have not formed it from a reliable process (as you may also just be feeling the breeze or a fan). Therefore, according to the externalist, you are not prima facie justified in believing this.
How is religious belief supposed to be (potentially) justified according to internalist theories?
The internalist would rely on phenomenal conservation to explain their religious beliefs. If it seems to S that religious belief P, then S has at least prima facie justification for proving religious belief P until proven otherwise.
For example, someone may say they have a strong intuition that heaven is real and that good people go to heaven. According to the internalist, because it seems to this person that heaven is real, they have at least prima facie justification for believing it. The only thing that may interfere with this justification is the presence of defeaters, such as a respected person telling them heaven isn’t real, or maybe them dying to see if they actually go to heaven.
Another example may be that someone sees a beautiful mountain, and from this they say “man, I know God exists because this beautiful mountain exists.” If it seems to this person that God exists because the beautiful mountain exists, then they at least have prima facie justification for believing that God exists (until proven otherwise)
How might religious belief not be justified according to internalism?
These beliefs would not be justified if it seemed to S that P but then S encountered a defeater.
For example: If it seems to S that God exists, then S has prima facie justification for believing that God exists. However, if the Devil came down to tell him that God does not exist, S would no longer have prima facie justification that God exists (due to the presence of the undercutting defeater that removed the justification that God exists)
What is an example where a person has a justified belief that they have a justified belief that P according to process reliabilism
Joey believes that he is a good dancer. He believes he is justified in believing that he is a good dancer because a professional dancer (that’s also his dance partner) told him he is a good dancer.
According to process reliabilism, Joey does have a reliable process. Joey isn’t asking some random jo-shmo with no dance experience if he’s a good dancer — rather, his professional dance partner is telling him he’s a good dancer. This is a reliable process, so Joey is justified in believing that he is justified in believing that he is a good dancer.
Karen believes that the pumpkin she left on her porch was smashed by hooligans. She believes this because she saw on her Ring camera a bunch of hooligans smashing her pumpkin. She believes that she is justified in believing that she is justified in believing that her pumpkins were smashed by hooligans.
Karen is using a reliable process. She is using the process of looking at her Ring footage to see that her belief that her pumpkin was smashed by hooligans is justified. She has a justified belief in believing that she is justified in believing her pumpkin was smashed by hooligans.
