What theory of justification do you agree with most?

Posted by: PetersSmith

Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs.

Vote
4 Total Votes
1

Coherentism

Coherentism is the name given to certain philosophical theories in modern epistemology, the study of knowledge. There are two distinct types of coherentism. One is the coherence theory of truth; the other, the coherence theory of justification. The ... coherentist theory of justification characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of justification. As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes foundationalism and infinitism and attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument. In this epistemological capacity, it is a theory about how belief can be justified. Coherentism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The coherentist's thesis is normally formulated in terms of a denial of its contrary foundationalism. Coherentism thus claims, minimally, that not all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief   more
2 votes
0 comments
2

Evidentialism

Evidentialism is a theory of justification according to which the justification of a conclusion depends solely on the evidence for it. Technically, though belief is typically the primary object of concern, evidentialism can be applied to doxastic at... titudes generally. Formulating evidentialism in terms of the doxastic attitude of belief its most-defended form comes from Conee and Feldman: Belief, B, toward proposition, p, is epistemically justified for Subject, S, at time, t, if and only if B fits the evidence which S has at t   more
1 vote
0 comments
3

Foundationalism

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, some secure foundation of certainty. Its main rival is coherentism, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the...  interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.Identifying the other options to be either circular reasoning or infinite regress, thus the regress problem, Aristotle found the clear choice to be foundationalism, which posits basic beliefs underpinning others. Descartes, the most famed foundationalist, discovered a foundation in the fact of his own existence and the "clear and distinct" ideas of reason, whereas Locke saw foundation in experience. A foundation reflects differing epistemological emphases—empiricists emphasizing experience, rationalists emphasizing reason—but may blend both.In the 1930s, debate over foundationalism revived   more
1 vote
1 comment
4

Classical foundationalism

Foundationalism holds basic beliefs exist, which are justified without reference to other beliefs, and that nonbasic beliefs must ultimately be justified by basic beliefs. Classical foundationalism maintains that basic beliefs must be infallible if ... they are to justify nonbasic beliefs, and that only deductive reasoning can be used to transfer justification from one belief to another. Laurence BonJour has argued that the classical formulation of foundationalism requires basic beliefs to be infallible, incorrigible, indubitable, and certain if they are to be adequately justified. Mental states and immediate experience are often taken as good candidates for basic beliefs because it is argued that beliefs about these do not need further support to be justified   more
0 votes
0 comments
5

Modest foundationalism

As an alternative to the classic view, modest foundationalism does not require that basic perceptual beliefs are infallible, but holds that it is reasonable to assume that perceptual beliefs are justified unless evidence to the contrary exists. This...  is still foundationalism because it maintains that all non-basic beliefs must be ultimately justified by basic beliefs, but it does not require that basic beliefs are infallible and allows inductive reasoning as an acceptable form of inference. For example, a belief that 'I see red' could be defeated with psychological evidence showing my mind to be confused or inattentive. Modest foundationalism can also be used to avoid the problem of inference. Even if perceptual beliefs are infallible, it is not clear that they can infallibly ground empirical knowledge (even if my belief that the table looks red to me is infallible, the inference to the belief that the table actually is red might not be infallible). Modest foundationalism does not require this link between perception and reality to be so strong; our perception of a table being yellow is adequate justification to believe that this is the case, even if it is not infallible   more
0 votes
0 comments
6

Foundherentism

In epistemology, foundherentism is a theory of justification that combines elements from the two rival theories addressing infinite regress, foundationalism prone to arbitrariness, and coherentism prone to circularity. Foundherentism was developed a... nd defended by Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology.In principle, foundationalism holds that basic beliefs unilaterally support derived beliefs, with support always directed from the former to the latter; coherentism holds that beliefs mutually support each other when they belong to the same coherent belief-set. As these theories were refined, however, some foundationalists began to admit that even basic beliefs could be fallible, and that derived beliefs could mutually support each other; whereas some coherentists began to admit that experiential beliefs should be weighted so as to reflect realistic degrees of coherence or justification. So the rival theories began to lean closer together. Moreover, those foundationalists who wondered why there couldn't be mutual support between basic and derived beliefs were in danger of falling into coherentism   more
0 votes
0 comments
7

Infinitism

Infinitism is the view that knowledge may be justified by an infinite chain of reasons. It belongs to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that considers the possibility, nature, and means of knowledge.
0 votes
0 comments
8

Internalism

In contemporary epistemology, internalism about justification is the idea that everything necessary to provide justification for a belief must be immediately available to an agent's consciousness. An internalist about knowledge will likely hold that...  the conditions that distinguish mere true belief from knowledge are similarly internal to the individual's perspective or grounded in the subject's mental states   more
0 votes
0 comments
9

Reformed epistemology

In the philosophy of religion, reformed epistemology is a school of thought regarding the epistemology of belief in God put forward by a group of Protestant Christian philosophers, most notably, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, William Alston, N... icholas Wolterstorff and Michael C. Rea. Central to Reformed epistemology is the idea that belief in God is a "properly basic belief": it does not need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable. Since this view represents a continuation of the thinking about the relationship between faith and reason that its founders find in 16th century Reformed theology, particularly in John Calvin's doctrine that God has planted in us a sensus divinitatis, it has come to be known as Reformed epistemology   more
0 votes
0 comments
10

Epistemological Skepticism

Skepticism, as an epistemological argument, poses the question of whether knowledge, in the first place, is possible. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this, skeptics oppose ... dogmatic foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic positions that are self-justified or beyond justification, without reference to others. (One example of such foundationalism may be found in Spinoza's Ethics.) The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that "basic positions" must exist amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope   more
0 votes
0 comments
11

Reliabilism

Reliabilism, a category of theories in the philosophical discipline of epistemology, has been advanced as a theory of knowledge, both of justification and of knowledge. Process reliabilism has been used as an argument against philosophical skepticis... m, such as the brain in a vat thought experiment. Process reliabilism is a form of epistemic externalism. A broadly reliabilist theory of knowledge is roughly as follows:One knows that p if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p through some reliable process.A broadly reliabilist theory of justified belief can be stated as follows:One has a justified belief that p if, and only if, the belief is the result of a reliable process.Moreover, a similar account can be given for such notions as 'warranted belief' or 'epistemically rational belief'.Leading proponents of reliabilist theories of knowledge and justification have included Alvin Goldman, Marshall Swain, Kent Bach and more recently, Alvin Plantinga. Goldman's article "A Causal Theory of Knowing" is generally credited as being the first full treatment of the theory, though D. M   more
0 votes
0 comments
12

Externalism

Externalism is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system but also of what either occurs or exists outside the subject. It is often contrasted with int... ernalism which holds that the mind emerges from neural activity alone. Externalism articulates the belief that the mind is not just the brain or what the brain does.There are different versions of externalism based both on the strength of the relation, and on what the mind is taken to be. Externalism stresses the importance of factors external to the nervous system. At one extreme, the mind could possibly depend on external factors. At the opposite extreme, the mind depends necessarily on external factors. The most extreme form of externalism maintains that the mind is either constituted by or identical with physical processes partially or totally external to the nervous system.Another important criterion is which aspect of the mind is addressed   more
0 votes
0 comments
13

Semantic externalism

In the philosophy of language, semantic externalism is the view that the meaning of a term is determined, in whole or in part, by factors external to the speaker. According to an externalist position, one can claim without contradiction that two spe... akers could be in exactly the same brain state at the time of an utterance, and yet mean different things by that utterance. The philosopher Hilary Putnam has summarized the position with the statement "meanings just ain't in the head!"Although he did not himself use the term "externalism" at the time, Putnam is generally considered to have invented semantic externalism in his 1975 paper "The Meaning of 'Meaning'", and the Twin Earth thought experiment he employed there to argue for the position is frequently cited in arguments over externalism to this day.Externalism is generally thought to be a necessary consequence of any causal theory of reference; since the causal history of a term is not internal, the involvement of that history in determining the term's referent is enough to satisfy the externalist thesis   more
0 votes
0 comments
14

Phenomenal externalism

Phenomenal externalism extends the externalist gist to phenomenal content. Fred Dretske (Dretske 1996) suggested that “The experiences themselves are in the head (why else would closing one's eyes or stopping one's ears extinguish them?), but nothin... g in the head (indeed, at the time one is having the experiences, nothing outside the head) need have the qualities that distinguish these experiences.” So, although experiences remain in the head, their phenomenal content could depend on something elsewhere   more
0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Episteme says2015-05-24T18:36:07.2767448-05:00
What about epistemic contextualism, in that the sentence S knows that p, or S doesn't know that p is dependent on the context which it is uttered?
Episteme says2015-05-24T18:38:42.9375360-05:00
Oh! Sorry, theory of justification rather than truth. Nevermind! Interesting poll! Thanks!

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.