Epistemology lecture week 3 wed 26/2
Agrippa’s trilemma =
-presents three ways that one could use to justify a belief
-challenges anyone that holds certainty
-key concept of skepticism
-highlights the difficulty of gaining knowledge
1)our beliefs are not supported (foundationalism, justified without any further belief to support)
2)our beliefs are supported by an infinite chain of justification (one which no supporting ground appears more than once = used by infinitism
3)our beliefs are supported by a circular chain of justification (one which a supporting ground appears more than once = coherentism
Theories of justification:
Coherentism =
-responds to number 3 of the Agrippa’s trilemma
-core idea: beliefs are justified by fitting into a coherent system of mutually supporting beliefs, they do not need a foundation
-structure: like a web where the justification comes from their supporting beliefs
-avoids the key problem of regression that is seen in foundationalism
-criticism: risks of circularity and the isolation problem (a perfectly coherent system of beliefs could still be false)
Foundationalism =
-responds to number 1 of the Agrippa’s trilemma
-core idea: some beliefs are foundational (self-evident, indubitable, or justified independently of other beliefs), and all other beliefs derive their justification from these
-structure: like a house where foundational beliefs serve as the base and other beliefs rest on them
-dif types: classical foundationalism = [only beliefs that are self-evident, evident to the senses, or indubitable can be foundational] AND Moderate foundationalism = [allows more kinds of beliefs, reliably formed beliefs, to be foundational]
-criticism: risks of infinite regress, if foundational beliefs need justification, or arbitrariness, if they do not need justification
Infinitism =
-a belief is justified if it is supported by infinite, non-repeated chain of reasoning
-unlike foundationalism: rejects the idea of self-evident or foundational reasoning
-unlike coherentism: avoids circular reasoning, by demanding an infinite chain of justification
-a never ending chain of reasoning
-avoids arbitrariness, and circularity
-criticism: 1) how can anyone actually know an infinite amount of reasonings 2) if we cannot access the whole chain, how can it be justified 3) why should we accept infinite regress instead of stopping somewhere