The Structure of knowledge

Question 1

Propositional justification

Answer 1

A matter of having good reasons for holding a belief to be true . Being in a
position to justifiedly believe. Focus: proposition.

Question 2

Doxastic justification

Answer 2

A matter of properly believing based on the good reasons one possesses.
Justifiedly believing. Focus: belief.

Question 3

What are reasons for belief

Answer 3

In most cases these reasons are other beliefs that stand in
an appropriate relation to the belief in question

Question 4

What makes something the right reasons for a belief?

Answer 4

To believe something for the right reasons is to have further beliefs
that support the belief in question
Thus, the right reasons are supporting beliefs
Put another way, the right reasons are the grounds for which you believe in something
this assumes internalism about justification

Question 5

Evidentialism about epistemic justification

Answer 5

S is justified in believing p if and only if S possesses evidence for p
which supports believing p

Question 6

If justified beliefs are grounded by supporting beliefs, then
what are the grounds for believing in the supporting beliefs?

Answer 6

This line of questioning can go on indefinitely, giving rise to the
regress problem

Question 7

3 possible solutions to the regress problem

Answer 7

1) Unjustified basic belief: We end the regress arbitrarily, and the belief that terminated the chain will be an unjustified basic belief

2) Accepting infinity: The regression of supporting beliefs goes on infinitely—fairly early on in the infinite chain we would be unable to account for our supporting beliefs

3) Embracing circularity: We may circle back and use a previously
supported belief to close the chain into a loop

Question 8

Problems for 1: “unjustified basic beliefs”

Answer 8

Houses with no foundations

Question 9

Problems for 2: “accepting infinity”

Answer 9

Psychologically impossible to assess whether supporting beliefs
far down the chain of reasons count as evidenc

Question 10

Problems for 3: ”embrace circularity”

Answer 10

Circular reasoning is by many considered an informal logical
fallacy
But more important for us: Where does the justification
originate in this circle

Question 11

Agrippa’s trilemma

Answer 11

Three unattractive options. Our beliefs are justified by:
o Nothing at all, they are unsupported
o They are justified by an infinite chain of justifying beliefs
o They are justified by a circular chain of justifying beliefs

Question 12

Three theories of justifcation

Answer 12

Foundationalism
Infinitism
Coherentism

Question 13

Foundationalism

Answer 13

There are basic beliefs which do not rely on supporting beliefs for
their justification. The chain of justification has an end.

Question 14

Infinitism

Answer 14

The chain is potentially infinite, and that’s okay!

Question 15

Coherentism

Answer 15

Embrace the circle, and allow previous beliefs in the chain to count as
supporting beliefs (non-vicious circularity).

Question 16

What do the theories have in common?

Answer 16

Foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism are all
evidentialist theories of epistemic justification

They are all, in our case at least, internalist theories of
justification

Question 17

Problems for coherentism

Answer 17

Circularity does not seem like an appropriate structure for justification

Where does the justification originate on a circular structure of justification?

There can be many different coherent systems of beliefs

Question 18

Problems for infinitism

Answer 18

Counter-intuitive; embracing an infinite, non-repeating, chain of reasons seems to support a sceptical view of the regress problem, not a solution

Psychologically impossible; “one cannot traverse an infinite series

Same as with coherentism: where does the justification originate?

Question 19

Foundationalism

Answer 19

The theory: There are some beliefs which are basic, and the rest of one’s beliefs inherit their epistemic status (i.e.,
justification) by virtue of being supported by these basic beliefs.

Two claims central claims:

o F1. There are justified basic beliefs
o F2.All justified non-basic beliefs are justified

in virtue of their relation to justified basic beliefs

Question 20

Justified basic beliefs

Answer 20

Beliefs that are justified, but not by further supporting beliefs
“self-justifying”, or better “self-evident”

Question 21

Justified non-basic beliefs

Answer 21

Beliefs that are deduced or derived from other justified beliefs

Question 22

Three questions for foundationalism

Answer 22

Question 1: Which of our beliefs count as justified basic beliefs?
Question 2: How are basic beliefs justified?
Question 3: What sort of relation must a non-basic belief have to justified basic beliefs in order to be justified?

Question 23

Decartes basic belief: foundation of Foundationalism

Answer 23

I think therefore I am
The basic belief: I exist (as a thinking entity)
This is a tiny foundation!

Question 24

Appearance beliefs

Answer 24

Only about one’s own state of mind

Question 25

External world beliefs

Answer 25

Entail something more than just one’s own state of mind

Question 26

What sort of relation must a non-basic belief have to justified basic beliefs in order to be justified?

Answer 26

Answer: Non-basic justified beliefs (ordinary everyday knowledge, external world knowledge, etc.) are justified because they can be deduced from our justified basic beliefs It is difficult to see how non-basic beliefs can be a logical consequence (deduced) of the justified basic beliefs, because of the radical doubt introduced by Descartes

Question 27

How can we eliminate doubt? Decartes solution

Answer 27

God This solution, as we talked about last time, is clearly question-begging

Question 28

Classical foundationalism has three claims:

Answer 28

CF1: Beliefs in one’s own existence, one’s own states of mind, and logical truths are justified basic beliefs CF2: These are justified basic beliefs because they are infallible CF3: Non-basic beliefs are justified if they are deduced from our justified basic beliefs

Question 29

Logical empiricism and foundationalism

Answer 29

Q1: Which of our beliefs count as justified basic beliefs? Answer: Direct observation, logico-mathematical truths, analytic statements Q2: How are basic beliefs justified? Answer: Either self-evident (logico-mathematical truths and analytic statements) or produced by a properly functioning cognitive faculty (direct observation) Q3: What sort of relation must a non-basic belief have to justified basic beliefs in order to be justified? Answer: Deduction and/or induction

Question 30

Immediate problem Logical empiricism

Answer 30

Such an account of logical empiricism relies on externalism in order to make observational beliefs justified basic beliefs Produced by a properly functioning cognitive faculty Myth of the given: Sellars argues that we cannot disentangle the conceptual parts of our experience from the “raw-data” of sensation:

Question 31

BonJour’s attempt at a solution

Answer 31

Beliefs from our experiences are not just raw sensations or thoughts about our sensations. They are basic, unconscious beliefs about what we're experiencing. While we may not be aware of the exact content of these beliefs, they still justify our understanding of our experiences. Problems: This view doesn't help us know about the external world; it only validates our private beliefs. It doesn't fully tackle the challenge of the "myth of the given."

Question 32

The infinitist objection to foundationlism

Answer 32

Does indubitability guarantee truth? A foundationalist has three possible options here: affirm, deny, or withhold Denying it: Then it shouldn’t be a basic belief, it would consist in an arbitrary termination of the chain of justification Withholding answer: Then it seems like the basic belief lacks justification Affirming it: Is it possible to affirm it without continuing the chain of reasoning?

Question 33

Infinitism

Answer 33

Our beliefs can be justified by an infinite chain of reasons Main motivation: The chain of reasons that make up the structure of justification is “reason-enhancing” o A major goal of reasoning (i.e., providing reasons for our belief) is to enhance the justification of our belief o Reasoning is not merely a tool for transferring justification from reasons to beliefs (cf. foundationalism) o Rather a belief's justification is enhanced when sufficiently good reasons are offered on its behalf * Thus, long chains of reasons might indicate that our justification of a belief is pretty good—while short chains might indicate that our justification is somewhat lacking

Question 34

Objection to infinitism

Answer 34

It is psychologically impossible to produce infinite chains of reasons We have finite lives and minds, infinitism requires too much of us Where in the infinite chain does justification originate? Even if infinitism is the only correct solution to the regress problem, and thus the correct account of the structure of justification, then it seems like scepticism is the correct view after all

Question 35

Infinitist reply to the objection

Answer 35

Justification seems to come in degrees Adequate justification Complete justification While complete justification is impossible to have we can still have adequate justification

Question 36

Coherentism

Answer 36

Main alternative to foundationalism Circularity solution Justification is not primarilty attribuatable to individual beliefs but rather to a syustem of beleifs in which the belief in question is embedded This does not mean that individual beliefs are not justified, but that they derive their status as justified from the system as a whole

Question 37

What is the most appropriate structe of chain of justification in coherentism

Answer 37

repeating finite chain coherentist argues that if the repeating chain is sufficiently large, this circularity need not be vicious The structure can be more like a spider web—it is only circular in so far that it loops back on itself

Question 38

Main motivations for coherentism

Answer 38

Practical motivation: When we justify our beliefs, it tends to involve a system of beliefs in which these are embedded

Question 39

When is a belief justified on the coherentist theory?

Answer 39

S’s belief that p is justified if and only if p belongs to, and coheres with, a system of S’s beliefs, and this system is coherent

Question 40

What is a coherent system?

Answer 40

The beliefs have to be logically consistent The beliefs must have propositional content that relate them to one another In order for coherentism to make a theory of justification there needs to be a psychological relation between the beliefs

Question 41

Problem for coherentism

Answer 41

If there are many alternative coherent systems of belief, which include beliefs that are not compatible across systems, then how are we to judge what system of belief is the best indicator of truth?

Question 42

Summing up the problems

Answer 42

* Most serious problem for foundationalism: How can we go from justified basic beliefs to non-basic yet justified empirical beliefs? * Most serious problem for infinitism: We are never able to tell if the chain of justification is actually justified, the best we get is that we can believe that some chain of justification are more likely to be justified than others * Most serious problem for coherentism: How are we to choose between different, equally coherent,systems of believes when attempting to justify a belief?