Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
related 6.85 — strongly supporting 114 facts
In epistemology, justification is a core component of knowledge, defined as the requirement that a belief must be supported by evidence or reliable processes to be considered knowledge [1], [2], [3]. Various theories, such as internalism, externalism, and foundationalism, explore how the structure and source of justification determine whether a specific belief is justified [4], [5], [6], [7].
Facts (114)
Sources
Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 37 facts
claimA belief is considered justified if it is the result of a cognitive process that reliably leads to true beliefs most of the time, allowing for human fallibility.
claimIn internalist epistemology, a belief B can only confer justification on another belief A if belief B is itself justified.
claimInternalism is an epistemological view maintaining that the justification of a belief depends solely on factors internal to the believer's mind, such as their thought processes during the belief's formation.
claimDavid Hume argues that reason is incapable of providing justification for any belief about the external world that extends beyond the scope of current sense perceptions.
claimTruth and justification are independent conditions of beliefs, meaning a belief can be unjustified yet true due to luck, or justified yet false due to human fallibility.
claimTruth and justification are independent conditions of beliefs, meaning a belief can be true but unjustified due to luck, or justified but false due to human fallibility.
claimInternalist accounts of justification require that a supporting belief (B) must itself be justified, as unjustified beliefs cannot confer justification on other beliefs.
claimThe goal of belief-forming practices is to obtain truth while avoiding error, and justification is the feature of beliefs formed in a way that best pursues this goal.
claimReliabilism maintains that a belief is justified if and only if the cognitive process that produced it is a reliable source of true beliefs.
claimThe 'no-false-belief' condition is insufficient to define knowledge because an individual can hold a justified, true belief that is not based on false beliefs but still fails to qualify as knowledge.
claimThe Gettier problem demonstrates that it is possible for a belief to be both justified and true, yet still fail to constitute knowledge because the truth of the belief relies on luck.
claimAccording to internalism, the only factors relevant to determining if a belief is justified are the believer's other mental states, such as beliefs about the world, sensory inputs, and beliefs about the relations between various beliefs.
claimCoherentism views justification as a relation of mutual support among many beliefs, rather than a series of asymmetrical beliefs.
claimInternalists argue that for a belief to be justified, it must be appropriately based upon or supported by other mental states.
claimJustification requires a match between a person's mind and the world, a requirement that critics argue is ignored by internalist theories that focus exclusively on the relations between beliefs in the mind.
claimKnowledge can be transmitted between individuals through testimony, where a person's justification for a belief is based on a trusted source confirming its truth.
claimIn internalism, a belief is considered justified only if it is appropriately based upon or supported by other mental states.
claimIn epistemology, a belief must be both true and justified to constitute knowledge.
claimThe regress argument assumes that the basing relation of justification is linear, meaning one belief is based on one or more other beliefs in an asymmetrical fashion.
claimThe 'no-false-belief' condition proposes that for a belief to constitute knowledge, it must be true, justified, and formed without relying on any false beliefs.
claimThe justification of a belief depends on the method by which the belief was arrived at, meaning two people can hold the same true belief but differ in whether they are justified in holding it.
claimCausal accounts of knowledge are incompatible with fallibilism because they do not allow for the possibility that a belief be justified yet false.
claimThe 'generality problem' in reliabilism posits that because cognitive processes can be described at various levels of generality, it is difficult to determine the appropriate level of description needed to assess whether a process is reliable or unreliable, and thus whether a belief is justified.
claimTo constitute knowledge, a belief must be both true and justified.
claimJustification is the property of a belief being obtained in the right way, typically based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.
claimReliabilism, a prominent version of externalism, suggests that the justification of a belief depends on the source of that belief, such as sense experience, reason, testimony, or memory.
claimThe 'generality problem' in epistemology posits that because cognitive processes can be described at various levels of generality, it is difficult to determine whether a specific process is reliable or unreliable, making it impossible to know if a belief is justified without knowing the appropriate level of generality to use.
claimThe 'no-defeaters' condition defines knowledge as a belief that is true, justified, and lacks any 'defeaters' to that justification.
claimGettier-type examples are characterized by a lack of a clear connection between the truth and the justification of the belief in question.
claimAccording to internalism, the only factors relevant to determining whether a belief is justified are the believer's other mental states, such as beliefs about the world, sensory inputs, and beliefs about the relations between various beliefs.
claimA 'defeater' is a false proposition that, if realized by the believer, would undercut or defeat the justification for their belief.
claimCoherentism defines justification as a holistic relationship among beliefs, where a belief derives its justification by being included in a set of beliefs that cohere with one another as a whole.
claimA belief is considered justified if it results from a cognitive process that reliably leads to true beliefs most of the time, allowing for human fallibility.
claimExternalism is the epistemological view that factors external to a believer's mind determine whether that believer is justified.
claimAccording to coherentism, a belief derives its justification from its membership in a set of beliefs that fit together in the right way, rather than by being based on one or more other beliefs.
claimInternalism is considered vulnerable to the isolation objection, meaning any complete internalist account of justification must address the possibility that beliefs can be coherent but disconnected from reality.
claimA belief is considered justified if it is obtained in the right way, which typically involves sound reasoning and solid evidence rather than luck or misinformation.
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 25 facts
claimDependence coherentism asserts that whenever a subject is justified in believing a proposition p1, the justification for believing p1 depends on the justification the subject has for believing some further propositions p1, p2, … pn.
claimThe belief 'It appears to me that that hat is blue' serves as an example of a potentially basic belief under the Doxastic Basicality (DB) definition, provided it does not owe its justification to any other beliefs held by the subject.
claimExperiential foundationalists who classify beliefs as basic cannot adopt the compromise position, as they must maintain that a perceptual experience (E) by itself is sufficient to make a belief (H) justified.
claimReliabilism is a view in epistemology which asserts that a belief is justified if and only if it originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties.
claimExperiential foundationalism asserts that a belief is justified by a mental state that is not a belief, specifically the perceptual experience that the belief is about.
claimAccording to explanatory coherentism, the justification for a belief (H) is structured by two beliefs: (1) the subject has a visual experience (E) of a hat looking blue, and (2) the subject's experience (E) is best explained by the assumption that the hypothesis (H) is true.
claimReliability coherentism posits that for a subject to be justified in believing a hypothesis (H), the subject need not believe anything about the reliability of the belief's origin, but must have justification for believing that the belief's origin is reliable, specifically by having justification for propositions (1) and (3).
claimUnder the compromise position, the justification for a belief (H) is the conjunction of the perceptual experience (E) and the track-record memories (M).
claimNon-traditional knowledge (NTK) theories conceive of the role of justification as ensuring that a subject's belief has a high objective probability of truth, thereby ensuring that if the belief is true, it is not true merely because of luck.
claimDependence coherentism rests on the supposition that it is possible for a subject to have justification for a proposition without actually believing that proposition.
claimPrivilege foundationalism asserts that a belief is justified if it possesses an epistemic privilege such as infallibility, indubitability, or incorrigibility, which makes the belief impossible to be false, doubted, or corrected by others.
claimA subject's justification for believing a proposition (p) is defined as possessing a link between the belief that p and the truth of p.
claimHaving justification for believing a proposition does not entail that a subject actually believes that proposition.
claimA belief (H) can be considered 'basic' under Dogmatic Foundationalism (DB) if the justification for (H) is owed solely to a perceptual experience (E) and track-record memories (M), provided neither (E) nor (M) includes any beliefs.
claimExplanatory coherentism is an epistemological approach where justification for a belief is derived from the belief being the best explanation for one's perceptual experiences.
claimExplanatory coherentism posits that for a subject to be justified in believing a hypothesis (H), it is not necessary that the subject actually believes the supporting propositions (1) and (2), but it is necessary that the subject has justification for believing (1) and (2).
claimTo test the validity of independence foundationalism, one can use thought experiments to conceive of a possible world where perceptual experience does not provide justification for belief, such as a scenario where seeing an object as blue provides no justification for believing it is blue.
claimThe 'compromise position' in epistemology asserts that for perceptual experiences to serve as a source of justification, an individual must possess justification for believing those experiences are reliable, rather than necessarily having considered and formed a belief about their reliability.
claimTypical coherentism, as construed by its advocates, requires that for a given belief to be justified, the subject must have certain further beliefs that constitute reasons for that given belief.
claimDependence coherentism rejects the requirement that justification must come in the form of beliefs, allowing instead for justification to come from introspective and memorial evidence, or from suitable perceptual experiences and memory content.
claimA priori knowledge consists of beliefs that are true, justified a priori, and not 'gettiered'.
claimThe 'compromise position' in epistemology attempts to bridge foundationalism and coherentism by arguing that perceptual experiences are a source of justification because a subject has justification for taking those experiences to be reliable, without requiring the subject to hold a belief that attributes reliability to those experiences.
claimAccording to the theory of knowledge (TK), a subject's belief that a proposition is true is justified when it is reasonable or rational from the subject's own point of view to take that proposition to be true, ensuring the belief is not true merely because of luck.
formulaA subject S is justified a priori in believing a proposition p if and only if the justification for believing p does not depend on any experience.
claimBoth the traditional approach (TK) and the non-traditional approach (NTK) to knowledge agree that the role of justification is to ensure that a subject's belief is not true merely because of luck.
What Is Epistemology? Pt. 3: The Nature of Justification and Belief philosimplicity.com 13 facts
claimThe Justified True Belief (JTB) theory, also known as the standard analysis, defines knowledge as consisting of three components: justification, truth, and belief.
claimMost epistemologists conclude that known things cannot be false because knowledge requires that beliefs be both justified and true.
claimFallibilism does not assert that beliefs are wrong or that true knowledge is impossible, but rather that absolute certainty regarding the nature of justifications in relation to the knowledge they provide is unattainable.
claimInternalism is a theory of justification which posits that everything required to justify a belief is accessible to a person within their own mind, such as mental states or sensory inputs.
claimThe Internal-External (IE) debate is a major contemporary debate in epistemology concerning whether justification for beliefs comes from internal mental states or external conditions.
claimInternalism and externalism in epistemology focus on the sources of justification and belief.
claimExternalism is a theory of justification which suggests that conditions outside of a person's mind must be met for a belief to be justified, such as the belief being supported by reliable processes or sources in the world.
claimFallibilism is the epistemological position that all of our best beliefs are only fallibly justified, meaning there is always room for reasonable doubt regarding the validity of the justifications provided for those beliefs.
claimFoundationalism and coherentism in epistemology focus on the structure of justification and belief.
claimFoundationalism is an epistemological theory that focuses on the structure of justification rather than its source, asserting that self-evident axioms or basic beliefs are necessary to support other justifications and beliefs.
claimCoherentism is an epistemological theory that evaluates the validity of a belief or justification based on how well it relates to and validates other beliefs and justifications.
claimCoherentism is structured as a non-hierarchical mesh where beliefs and justifications support one another equally through mutual affirmation.
claimInternalists in epistemology only accept internal justifications for beliefs.
Epistemic Justification – Introduction to Philosophy: Epistemology press.rebus.community 11 facts
claimProcess reliabilism holds that a belief is justified if it is produced by a reliable process type, defined as a process that produces true beliefs more often than false beliefs.
procedureThe Agrippan trilemma evaluates the structure of justification for a belief by eliminating possibilities: (1) If the chain of reasons is infinite, it is rejected because humans do not have an infinite number of reasons. (2) If the chain of reasons is circular, it is rejected because circular reasoning is unjustified. (3) This leaves the finite and linear structure as the remaining possibility for justification.
claimEpistemologists use the terms 'internalist' and 'externalist' to distinguish whether a theory requires a person to cognitively access or be aware of the factors that make their belief justified; theories requiring such access are 'internalist,' while those that do not are 'externalist.'
formulaProper functionalists argue that a person S's belief B is justified if and only if the cognitive faculties producing B are functioning properly, aimed at truth, and reliable in the environments for which they were designed.
claimCoherentism is the view that justification has a weblike structure such that any justified belief is justified by coherence relations it bears to the person’s entire set of beliefs.
claimAccording to one prominent coherentist view, a belief is justified for a person if adding that proposition to their existing set of beliefs increases the overall coherence value of their belief system.
claimIn pure coherentism, a belief is part of its own justification because each belief depends on coherence relations among the entire set of beliefs.
claimA justification defeater is defined as something that prevents a belief from being justified.
claimPure coherentism is the theory that a belief is justified if and only if it coheres well with all other beliefs a person holds.
claimExternalists claim that whether a person with a particular set of mental states justifiably believes a proposition p is contingent on factors external to the person's mind, meaning two people with identical mental states could differ in the justification of their beliefs.
claimAgrippa's argument for global skepticism posits that for any belief to be justified, the chain of reasons supporting it must be either finite and linear, circular, or infinite, and that each of these structures is inherently problematic.
Epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 7 facts
claimEpistemology includes a view that a belief is justified if it is formed through a reliable belief formation process, such as perception.
claimCoherentists argue that a belief is justified if it is consistent with other beliefs.
claimEpistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge.
claimExternalism is motivated by the view that justification makes it more likely that a belief is true, with some factors contributing to this likelihood existing outside the believer's cognitive perspective.
claimEvidentialists analyze justification by asserting that for a belief to be justified, it must rest on adequate evidence.
claimReliabilism is an externalist theory asserting that a reliable connection between belief and truth is required for justification.
claimPhilosophers have proposed various alternative definitions of knowledge to address counterexamples, including requirements that the known fact must cause the belief in the right way, that the belief must be the product of a reliable belief formation process, that the person would not have the belief if it were false, that the belief is not inferred from a falsehood, that the justification cannot be undermined, or that the belief is infallible.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2019 Edition) plato.stanford.edu 7 facts
claimReliability coherentism faces a circularity problem because if a belief (H) is justified by a belief (3) regarding the reliability of a source, then belief (3) itself must also be justified, often requiring the use of the very faculty being tested.
claimCoherentism asserts that for perceptual experiences to serve as a source of justification, an individual must have considered the matter and formed the belief that those experiences are reliable.
claimReliabilism suggests that a brain in a vat (Tim*) is incorrect in believing his beliefs are justified because his beliefs originate in cognitive processes that are unreliable in his current situation, as they yield virtually no true beliefs.
claimEvidentialism implies that a brain in a vat (Tim*) is correct in believing his beliefs are justified because he is not deceived about his evidence, which is defined as the way things appear to him in his experiences.
claimEvidentialists argue that the obligations relevant to assessing whether a belief is justified are those that arise from the pursuit of truth, specifically that one ought to believe in accordance with one's evidence.
claimThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) asserts that knowledge requires truth because false propositions cannot be known, requires belief because a subject cannot know a proposition they do not believe, and requires justification to ensure that a subject's correct belief is not merely a matter of luck.
claimAccording to Traditional Knowledge (TK) theory, a subject's belief is justified if it is reasonable or rational from the subject's own point of view, ensuring the belief is true not merely because of luck.
Naturalized Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 4 facts
claimEvidentialism asserts that the natural facts determining whether a belief is justified are facts about the evidence a person possesses for that belief.
claimTraditionalists hold that to be justified in a belief, one must possess evidence supporting the belief and also 'grasp' the connection between that evidence and the proposition being believed.
claimReliabilism maintains that the justification of a belief depends on whether the process that formed the belief is a reliable source of true beliefs.
quoteJaegwon Kim stated in his 1988 critical discussion of Quine's 'Naturalized Epistemology': '...if a belief is justified, that must be so because it has certain factual, non-epistemic properties...That it is a justified belief cannot be a brute fundamental fact... [it] must be grounded in the factual descriptive properties of that particular belief.'
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 2 facts
claimThe epistemology of testimonially-based belief concerns the epistemic status of a subject's belief, specifically evaluating whether the belief is justified, rational, warranted, supported by evidence, or constitutes knowledge.
claimEpistemology involves assigning statuses such as 'knowledge' or 'justification' to beliefs based on whether those beliefs meet specific epistemic standards.
Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research cefcambodia.com 2 facts
accountPritchard (2018) provides the example of Harry, who forms a belief about which horse will win a race based on which horse's name appeals to him; even if the horse wins and the belief is true, Harry did not 'know' the outcome because the belief was not formed through appropriate justification.
claimThe key components of knowledge are identified as truth, belief, and justification.
Naturalistic Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 1 fact
claimDonald Davidson's naturalism is characterized by a limited direct application of hard science to epistemological problems, while he maintains that only another belief can justify a belief, viewing justification as arising from the relationships among one's beliefs.
Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science oecs.mit.edu 1 fact
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge and related phenomena, including attitudes like belief and trust, attributes like justification and reliability, and intellectual traits such as humility or arrogance.
Naturalism in Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 1 fact
claimEvidentialism posits that a belief is justified to the degree that it fits the subject's evidence, meaning the possession of evidence is what makes a belief justified.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 1 fact
claimA Gettier case is constructed by starting with a belief that meets the justification condition for knowledge, adding an element of bad luck that would normally prevent the belief from being true, and adding a dose of good luck that cancels out the bad luck so the belief ends up true.
7.1 What Epistemology Studies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax openstax.org 1 fact
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, focusing on what knowledge is, the types of knowledge that exist, the possibility and nature of justification, the sources of beliefs, and the nature of truth.
Understanding Epistemology and Justified True Belief - Quizlet quizlet.com 1 fact
claimKnowledge is defined as Justified True Belief (JTB), which requires three components: belief, truth, and justification.