The Structure of Justification - Epistemology Video 7

[@台男波哥]

0:10 why do we care about justification 0:15 1st reason: ingredient of knowledge 1:30 2nd reason: why do you believe that 3:20 distinguish "epistemic justification" from two other things: causal, pragmatic 7:05 can I really believe it? 8:30 how does justification (usually) work? 9:30 e.g. are there more than a thousand dogs in the Netherlands? 10:45 attempt: works through inference? 11:25 1st problem: we seem to believe a lot of things that maybe we haven't really inferred: "can", "could have", "unconsciously" 13:45 2nd problem: those other things you believe probably need to be justified as well: "string of reasons", 15:15 change Definition of justification? 16:05 the regress problem 17:30 Agrippa's trilemma 18:10 3+1 ways 18:50 1st option: infinitism 20:00 2nd option: foundationalism 21:10 3rd option: coherentism 22:00 holism 23:00 skepticism

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

It seems, no matter what option we choose, there's an inescapable circularity at the root of any belief system. It seems we are all coherentists including skeptics. All thought is circular. Some of us just don't realize it. The trouble is to make a distinction between vicious and benign circularity. In my view, the best we could probably do is to start with a set of epistemic norms as a quasi-foundation and we keep questioning and testing them along the way as we build our web of belief. I think Susan Haack proposed something like that and called it "Foundherentism". This theory is probably worth exploring!

[@clumsydad7158]

yes, there is no answer, only the pursuit of the conception and reconceptualizations of answers

[@dnys_7827]

this has prob been thought of before, but perhaps one path to make inifinitism more plausible would be to focus on describing a general rule for producing the infinite chain of reasons, like how in math to describe the infinite set of positive integers you state the rule "start at 0, add 1 to previous". the chain itself doesnt have to be grasped, and ofc can't be grasped since we are finite beings, but the rule can.

[@rebeccajean9806]

Good morning, this is just what the doctor ordered . Thank you.

[@VictorGijsbers]

You've got a doctor who knows what's important.

[@jamespierce5355]

Every worldview requires (at least) one starting axiom - that is, one starting foundation that is taken ad hoc.

[@jopeDE]

you make great videos! Thx

[@dnys_7827]

is it not possible that two of the trilemma's horns, or even all three, might be valid at once? has sth like a "justification pluralism" been defended?

[@clumsydad7158]

there is likely only meaning inside of context, in the minor sense of the limited experiences of each human life, and in the major sense of what a human brain is able to perceive and know

[@livrepensador]

I love your videos!

[@das.gegenmittel]

If epistemologists don't learn to swim, they will never find out how to stay afloat.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

That's a nice way to put it.

[@clumsydad7158]

yes, as motion is being, and reality is only the context of the type of water one is in - there you have heidegger and wittgenstein; there you have the 20th century. keep paddling everybody