Problem of Justification

Problem of Justification

• It is an enduring problem in epistemology
• It is the struggle to identify a problem-free criterion

Justification

• In epistemology, it is the reasons or evidence that demonstrate the appropriateness of holding a belief
• Informally it is a quality of beliefs themselves
• Technically, justification is a quality of a given subject (a conscious individual)
• Beliefs are not justified per se, but a subject is justified in holding a belief
• A belief could be justified for one person, but unjustified for another
• Philosophers distinguish between epistemic and pragmatic justification
• Epistemic justification has a value commitment to correspondence
• Pragmatic justification has a value commitment to efficacy

Justification Strategy

• It is any strategy by which a subject seeks to be justified in holding a belief
• Includes vulgar justification strategies and philosophical theories of justification

Vulgar Justification Strategy

• In a vulgar subject, it is a de facto strategy for the justification of belief
• Ancient Greek philosophers identified axiomatic, circular, and regressive justification after reflecting on ordinary people
• Philosophers regard all three vulgar strategies as unsuccessful.

Theories of Justification

• Philosophical attempts to solve the problem of justification, not vulgar ones
• They propose a criterion by which a subject should be judged to be justified in holding a belief
• These were historically referred to as "theories of knowledge" but that usage has fallen out of favor

Generic Scheme for Theories of Justification

• A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p if (criterion)
• Shorter version: S is justified in believing p if (criterion)
• Longer version: A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p at time t if (criterion)
• Major theories include skepticism, foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism
• Other theories are evidentialism and eudaimonic justification

Justification Ideals

• These are the qualities of an ideal justification strategy
• The ideal strategy provides justification meaningfully independent from the belief the embrace of which the subject seeks to justify
• The ideal strategy provides justification that is infallible (a subject will never be "justified" in believing a proposition that is isolated)
• None of the three vulgar justification strategies meet these ideals
• Philosophers are divided on whether any of the philosophical theories of justification meet these ideals

Axiomatic Justification

• One of the three vulgar justification strategies
• It consists of justification of a belief by reference to another belief that the subject considers axiomatic, or self-evident
• A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p if p itself is axiomatic, or if p is logically derivable from an axiomatic proposition
• Many argue that no axioms are actually justified and axiomatic justification fails to satisfy our justification ideals

Circular Justification

• One of the three vulgar justification strategies
• It consists of justification of a belief through the following steps: 1) A belief is first justified by reference to an external criterion, and 2) The external criterion is justified ultimately by reference back to the original belief
• A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p1 if both: p1 is supported by p2; and p2 is supported ultimately by p1
• Circular justification fails to satisfy justification ideals because the justification provided is ultimately dependent upon the original belief

Regressive Justification

• One of the three vulgar justification strategies
• It consists of justification of a belief by reference to an external criterion that is itself unjustified, and requires its own further justification by reference to yet another (unjustified) external criterion
• This regression continues ad infinitum
• A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p1 if p1 is supported by p2, and p2 is supported by p3, and p3 is supported by....
• Regressive justification fails to satisfy justification ideals

Skepticism

• Refers nearly always to epistemological skepticism
• It can be contrasted against Ancient Skepticism
• Epistemological skepticism is a theory of justification that proposes the following criterion of justification: A subject S is justified in believing a proposition p only if p is certain
• What is meant here is that certainty of correspondence is a necessary condition for justification
• A typical skeptic will also hold the following three logically inter-related beliefs: 1) Beliefs are never certain; 2) Beliefs are never justified; 3) Knowledge is impossible

Foundationalism

• It is a theory of justification that proposes the following criterion: a subject S is justified in believing a proposition p1 if p1 is indubitable, or if p1 is logically derivable from indubitable p2
• "Indubitable" means incapable of being doubted logically
• If p is indubitable, it is impossible for p to be isolated from objective reality
• Philosophers refer to the foundational proposition as a basic belief
• Foundationalism counts as an example of epistemic justification as opposed to pragmatic justification

Coherentism

• It is a theory of justification that proposes the following criterion: a subject S is justified in believing a proposition p if p is coherent with S's other beliefs
• Coherentism counts as an example of pragmatic justification as opposed to epistemic justification
• The strength of this theory is that justification is attainable
• The most fundamental challenge is that there are cases where S could be justified in believing p even when p is isolated from objective reality

Reliabilism

• It is a theory of justification that proposes the following criterion: a subject S is justified in believing a proposition p if p originates in reliable processes
• Reliable processes could include things like perception and/or reason
• The strength of this theory is that justification is attainable
• Reliabilism counts as an example of pragmatic justification as opposed to epistemic justification
• The most fundamental challenge is that there are cases where S could be justified in believing p even when p is isolated from objective reality

Münchhausen Trilemma

• It is an argument from Hans Albert intending to challenge the possibility of justification
• The vulgar justification strategies are the only conceivable justification strategies
• The vulgar strategies all fail
• S is never justified in believing p
• Skeptics accept this, foundationalists and coherentists dispute the second premise, and reliabilists dispute the first premise

Types of Justification

• Philosophers have proposed a distinction between two general types of justification: epistemic and pragmatic (AKA prudential)
• Epistemic justification includes any justification theory or de facto strategy that makes at least an implicit value commitment to correspondence
• Epistemic justification: vulgar justification strategies, skepticism, foundationalism, and evidentialism
• Pragmatic justification includes any justification theory or de facto strategy that makes at least an implicit value commitment to efficacy, or usefulness
• Pragmatic justification: coherentism, reliabilism, and eudaimonic justification
• The distinction between epistemic justification vs pragmatic justification is loosely co-extensive with the distinction between objective justification vs subjective justification