Internalism in Epistemology? | w/Dr. Tim McGrew - ep. 207

[@ParkersPensees]

Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@telosbound]

I’ve learned so much from Tim and his lovely wife Lydia! Thanks for having him on :)

[@febbday93]

Quality. I saw Dr. McGrew speak in Kalamazoo a couple months back--I am impressed at how down to earth he is with the amount of scholarly knowledge. Phenomenal man and family. Although some of this is beyond my own intelligence, it is nonetheless fascinating. Thanks for posting this, Parker--blessings and best of luck to you!!

[@ParkersPensees]

Thanks Ashley! He really is something special!

[@daman7387]

Tyler McNabb and Tim McGrew discussion on reformed epistemology!!

[@richp860]

Oof. Tyler would get cooked.

[@CJ-sw8lc]

I don't understand the question, but I DO know that my dog has the justified belief that he's really really really cute.

[@josueguedes8474]

Thanks Parker! I’ve been teaching myself epistemology lately. This helps a lot! God bless brother

[@ParkersPensees]

Man, I was hoping this would be helpful!

[@ParkersPensees]

0:00 - External pressure to be an externalist? 6:14 - what is internalism and externalism? 9:20 - Does my Dog Have Justified Beliefs? 14:43 - Internalist response to Gettier Problems 36:10 - Metaregress for Externalism 42:14 - Aristotle's Transcendental argument? 47:09 - Back to the metaregress 50:57 - Is Knowledge of God Properly Basic? 1:01:24 - is there any infallible knowledge? 1:09:26 - Simulation Hypothesis!

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Perfect for my road-trip. Thanks!

[@ParkersPensees]

My man!

[@thorobreu]

McGrew mentioned that he doesn't know what properly basic knowledge of God would look like. I wonder if it would have to some sort of ontological argument where one has such a deep understanding of the concept of God that he "just sees" that God must exist, as an analytic truth. Not to say that there are any such successful arguments on the market, but maybe in principle this is what direct acquaintance with God would look like

[@scotthutson8683]

I could listen to Tim for hours man, great interview!!

[@ParkersPensees]

Same. Any preference on what I should talk with him about next time?

[@scotthutson8683]

@@ParkersPensees I'd love to hear more on Philosophy of Science (haven't heard much on that side of Tim). You could do the use of probability theory in philosophy of religion and have objections from Arif Ahmed and others ready to ask him about, you could talk to him about the proper view of Evidence and it's various forms (think scientifc and testimonial and the weight they carry in arguments), Philosophy of Miracles / Special Divine Action is a strong area of his and he's unique because he wrote the entry for the Stanford Encyclepedia of Philosophy on it. Finally my favorite talk of his was on Classical Works where he surveys the great intellectual history of Christian Apologetics many of whom are now forgotten. My FAVORITE idea (which you may not enjoy lol) is to field him question about Van Til's ideas....His contribution to the 4 views on Christianity and Philosophy was by far the strongest handling the views of both Oppy and K. Scott Oliphant very well.

[@ParkersPensees]

@@scotthutson8683 this is all gold. I also loved his contribution to the Christianity and Philosophy views book! He's the man

[@CoranceLChandler]

Definitely more of an externalist myself but I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the other side

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Fantastic interview!

[@ParkersPensees]

I was hoping you'd like it!

[@scotthutson8683]

Tim name dropping both Quine and Fumerton was enjoyable!

[@JohnBaskette]

Dogs clearly have justified beliefs, but cats are an entirely different matter.

[@Scott_Terry]

Aaaand the myth of the "given" raises its head again! I'm a fan of Tim McGrew but here, when he makes his appeal to foundational beliefs (around the 1-hour mark), eg: 1 + 1 = 2, or the Cogito, etc., he skips over the relevancy of concepts and concept-formation in the epistemic process. I am coming from a Van Tillian perspective here. I think theologian Cornelius Van Til had a unique and, as-of-yet, unexplored epistemology that deserves to have a voice in the arena of epistemic speculation. McGrew's work is helpful in some respects (especially in his approach to Gettier which I think is extremely helpful for Van Tillians), but he makes the mistake of all foundationalists when glossing over conceptualization. He admits to being a Lockean sort of representational realist. This is excellent, but that just means our thoughts (and our "knowings") are necessarily conceptual! So the Cogito (as well as simple mathematics) no matter how intuitive, become subject to conceptualization. Parker pushed back a little via logic when he asked about the paraconsistent guys, but McGrew hand waves that away. But we might mis-conceive all sorts of, otherwise, intuitive phenomena. 1 + 1 = 10 ...in binary! That's equally as intuitive but conceived differently. Foundationalists must reckon with this. They must have some authoritative way - perhaps a word from God Himself - to authorize correct conceptions!

[@daemeonation3018]

I remember when my wife was giving birth and the doctor had to do one. SNIP. It sounded like to snips. But if I get to be an EXPERT in it, watch out pregnant women everywhere but let's go!!!

[@izzygarcialionibabaloipici6293]

my dog can emotionally manipulate me

[@introvertedchristian5219]

If your dog doesn't know he's a g'boy, then you haven't done your job in teaching him epistemology.

[@ParkersPensees]

Amen!

[@logicalliberty132]

Yet another utterly confused criticism of sub-classical logic to add to the collection

[@israeltrujillo-sba6747]

do You have any sources for your view?

[@logicalliberty132]

@@israeltrujillo-sba6747 Read anything by Beall or Priest. Especially Beall.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

No, it’s utterly confused and utterly correct at the same time

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Subclassical theorists are the Calvinists of the philosophical community.

[@berjmanoushagian786]

The serious problem with this discussion is the fatally flawed assumption that Knowledge is Justified True Belief. (K=JTB) This invalid attempt to define Knowledge arises from at least two shortfalls. Ignorance of the several different uses of the copula, and ignorance of the correct definition of Truth. When carefully analyzed, we come upon the conclusion that the copula in K=JTB is the IS of Consequence, and thus K=JTB is NOT the definition of knowledge. Furthermore, and more insidiously, K=JTB is a surreptitious way of trying to infiltrate the concept of Truth into the concept of knowledge. It is an attempt to ascribe Truth to propositions without first defining Truth. We are expected to wrap the concept of Truth into the concept of knowledge, without having defined Truth. This discussion is not enlightening and becomes irrelevant when we see that K=JTB is NOT a definition of knowledge and we realize what is the correct definition of Truth. Please visit this website: www.truth-defined.com/ErroneousEpistemologies.htm and www.truth-defined.com/TheNatureOfTheCopula.htm