Epistemic Justification: Foundationalism vs Coherentism

<p>All statements about the external world are justified only as a collective. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It holds that some beliefs are self-warranting and incorrigible. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Perception can be false despite being certain. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The significance of statements is determined by their collective coherence. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The infinite regress argument (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They are better expressed as 'I am being appeared to'. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Certainties are the base for understanding probabilities. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They sometimes rest on beliefs that are not well-founded. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>All empirical beliefs derive their justification from other empirical beliefs. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It poses challenges to understanding basic beliefs. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It must fit into a consistent belief system. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Minimal content reduces potential errors and increases incorrigibility. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Incorrigible (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>There is a strict hierarchy in the justification of beliefs. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It cannot be doubted. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>There are privileged basic empirical beliefs. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>I am experiencing a headache. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It must come from within the system. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Roderick Chisholm (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It cannot be negated by any argument. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>An endorsement of incorrigible basic beliefs. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Classical Foundationalism (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Consulting horoscopes for marriage decisions. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They have minimal content leading to less risk of error. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It is not capable of being depended upon. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The challenge of justifying beliefs without infinite justification. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Perception through senses dictates reality. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It connects beliefs into a supportive system. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It opens itself to traditional philosophical attacks. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The existence of basic and inferentially justified beliefs (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A self-warranting belief that does not require further justification (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Basic empirical beliefs (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>David Hume (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They are linear and one-directional (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Beliefs must be coherent with one another (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If I do not bring in the lawn chairs, the cushions will be soaked. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They provide ultimate justification for other empirical beliefs. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They need not be strictly self-evident. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Weak foundationalism makes more modest claims. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Current material surroundings and future predictions. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They aim to present arguments that may withstand traditional critiques. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They must have some level of initial credibility. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It limits the ability to justify beliefs about unobserved events. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They believe it is too strong and requires modification. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They should not depend on other beliefs for justification. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

The idea that all our beliefs, even basic ones, are justified by their relationships to other beliefs within a system of knowledge.

Beliefs that are considered foundational and do not require further justification. They are the starting points of our knowledge.

The argument that a belief system cannot rely on an infinite chain of justifications. There must be some foundation or basic beliefs.

The problem of providing justification for our basic beliefs. If we justify them by referring to other beliefs, we create an infinite chain.

The process of revising or changing our beliefs when they conflict with other beliefs in our system.

A specific type of coherentism where justification involves both positive support from the system and lack of negative impact. An example is a detective finding evidence that fits with their theory about a crime.

The idea that all empirical justification is based on inference from other beliefs. There are no foundational beliefs that are inherently justified on their own.

Coherentists believe that no belief is immune from revision. They can be challenged and modified within the system.

A belief that is accepted as true without needing further justification. It's the starting point for knowledge and acts as a foundation for other beliefs.

A philosophical view that all knowledge must ultimately rely on self-evident or unquestionable basic beliefs as its foundation.

The transfer of justification from basic beliefs to other, non-basic beliefs.

A belief that is not justified by other beliefs, but is considered true due to its inherent nature or direct experience.

The idea that justification for beliefs can be achieved through a process of logical deduction from basic beliefs.

The view that knowledge is not built on isolated beliefs but rather on a network of interconnected beliefs, all tested against experience.

The idea that beliefs can be justified through a process of reasoning from other beliefs, ultimately leading back to basic, self-warranting beliefs.

The problem of infinite regress, where each justification for a belief requires further justification, leading to an endless loop.

Foundationalism is a theory of knowledge that states that knowledge and justified belief are only possible through foundational beliefs, which are self-warranting and do not need justification from other beliefs.

Empirically grounded beliefs that are considered self-evident and do not require justification from other beliefs. For example, 'It is raining now' is a basic belief because it is self-evident when observing rain.

beliefs that are justified by other beliefs, particularly foundational beliefs. For example, the belief 'If I don't bring in the lawn chairs, the cushions will get wet' is justified based on the basic belief 'It is raining now' and the inference that cushions left in the rain will get wet.

The relationship between beliefs in foundationalism is linear and one-directional. This means that foundational beliefs justify non-foundational beliefs, but not vice versa.

A system of ideas and beliefs that are consistent and logically connected. A coherent system provides support and justification for beliefs within it.

Key thinkers who subscribe to foundationalism. Examples: Descartes, Hume, McGrew, Chisholm, Moser, and Bonjour (who was initially a coherentist).

Incorrigible beliefs are those we cannot be rationally corrected on, even if we're wrong. They serve as a foundation for justifying other beliefs.

Strong foundationalism claims that all knowledge is based on a set of self-evident, incorrigible beliefs.

Modest foundationalism accepts that basic beliefs are not infallible, but they are epistemically basic and form the foundation of our knowledge.

Terminal beliefs are the beliefs that stop the regress of justification. They need not be self-evident, but they do not need to be justified by other beliefs.

Initial credibility is the inherent plausibility of a belief, independent of any further justification or evidence. It is the foundational starting point for belief formation.

The regress of justification refers to the infinite chain of reasoning that arises when we ask for justification for any given belief. Each belief is then justified by another belief that we must then also justify, leading to an endless chain of reasoning.

Examples of words used to describe the concept of basic beliefs that cannot be doubted or proven false.

A belief that is based on personal experience and the senses, but these experiences could be false or misleading, like a dream.

The idea that our senses give us direct access to the world, providing us with basic empirical beliefs that are considered certain.

The philosopher who is most often associated with Classical Foundationalism (CF), known for his emphasis on the importance of self-evident, incorrigible truths.

The argument is that CF is vulnerable to criticism because the strength of its claims about absolute certainties makes it open to traditional philosophical attacks.

The idea that some basic, foundational beliefs are infallible or incorrigible (cannot be wrong). This suggests that certain experiences are directly known and cannot be doubted.

A problem faced by foundationalists who argue for incorrigible beliefs. If the content of these beliefs is extremely simple ('Something looks white to me'), there's less room for error, but they might not be useful for justifying other beliefs. If the content is more complex, it becomes easier to be wrong. This creates a dilemma.

The process of using evidence from one belief to support the justification of another belief. The foundationalist view suggests that basic beliefs are directly known and can justify other beliefs.

Rene Descartes' famous statement claiming certainty about his own existence based on his immediate conscious experience. This statement is often seen as a foundational belief, as it's based on direct experience and seems impossible to doubt.

A problem faced by foundationalists who attempt to explain how we know about the external world. If basic beliefs are purely inner experiences, how do they provide knowledge of things outside of our minds?