Knowledge Tree
justification
synthesized from dimensionsIn epistemology, justification is a fundamental normative property of beliefs that serves as a necessary condition for transforming a true belief into knowledge 624680a5-5d70-4422-8ccc-189d7be51355. Its primary function is to provide an "anti-luck" mechanism, ensuring that a belief is not merely correct by accident 6e6b4e59-a21d-4b7d-97a4-498225efc7c4, f54e9f6d-5914-4740-a9f9-36490d4a8507. While justification is essential to the traditional analysis of knowledge, it remains conceptually distinct from truth; one can be justified in holding a false belief due to human fallibility, or possess a true belief that lacks justification because it was formed through unreliable means 7352a3dd-a5b4-48b7-b705-028175c36cf6, 2e17dbc1-5e30-4fa6-adbf-5332aac7ecd4.
A central tension in the study of justification is the divide between internalism and externalism 76f1e7e7-7e60-4578-a0da-8b0a4756080d. Internalists argue that justification must be based on factors accessible within the subject’s own mind, such as mental states or evidence 812171f5-9dee-4459-9ca6-1c7393b56c81, bf0beaf3-2d3e-47e6-9516-d8f0c39fd7d5. Externalists, by contrast, contend that justification depends on objective factors outside the subject's awareness, such as the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief 733d5fde-2704-4e64-87c5-cd733b8a3860, ee06496a-4e25-4748-b9c8-e165380c75f6.
The structure of justification is frequently analyzed through the lens of the "Agrippan trilemma," which questions how a chain of reasons can support a belief without descending into an infinite regress, circularity, or an arbitrary stopping point 9d500a5c-8828-4c2f-aa09-e7386da8bea3. Foundationalists resolve this by positing the existence of "basic beliefs" that require no further justification 63eafcbe-4b09-4507-938b-1b896e5071ce, c546d6d7-1868-41ca-86ff-ed6ae0265dcc. Coherentists reject this hierarchy, arguing instead that justification emerges from the holistic, mutual support of an interconnected web of beliefs 7b6120e3-a502-4a6d-b2f4-ff7be3ecc5ed, d5a22be0-59b7-46e2-9221-61fb293ed646. Infinitists, though less common, suggest that the chain of reasons can legitimately continue infinitely b5aff312-d419-4c05-85c1-8c76f75d200d.
Beyond these structural and internalist-externalist debates, specific theories offer distinct criteria for justification. Evidentialism asserts that justification is entirely determined by the possession of adequate evidence 6f00b890-d818-47ad-9ac2-05fec101931e. Process Reliabilism identifies justification with the reliable production of true beliefs cd1e35a9-e1d2-4709-bd8e-9a5fdcfcdba2, while virtue epistemology shifts the focus to the intellectual character and virtues of the agent d70b6502-902f-4e42-84bf-7f5f34d5cab8. Additionally, the role of testimony as a basic source of justification remains a subject of active inquiry, with some scholars arguing it functions similarly to perception or memory 80a3c7ad-2e60-4e0c-9b3e-406a18243805, 0086c70f-945a-4c6f-a1d3-65b52390483b.
The significance of justification lies in its role as the gatekeeper of knowledge. Despite the challenges posed by Gettier cases—where a belief is justified and true but still appears to be a matter of luck d15eb4ad-fab6-4e58-8c27-543716ae1058—justification remains the primary tool for distinguishing rational, well-founded belief from superstition or coincidence. While some critics argue that the focus on justification neglects the moral and social dimensions of intellectual life 7b523903-a062-46d1-81d7-f9233f7aac5b, it remains a cornerstone of epistemological inquiry, essential for maintaining the normative standards of human knowledge.
Model Perspectives (8)
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Justification is a central component of epistemology, traditionally defined as a necessary condition for knowledge alongside truth and belief standard analysis of knowledge. Because justification does not guarantee truth, a belief can be justified but false due to human fallibility, or true but unjustified due to luck independent conditions of beliefs.
A primary debate regarding justification concerns the divide between internalism and externalism. Internalists, as described by the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, maintain that justification depends solely on factors internal to the mind, such as thought processes internalism maintains internal factors. In contrast, externalists argue that justification relies at least partially on external factors, such as the reliability of the process that generated the belief internalist vs externalist factors. John Greco further challenged internalist perspectives in his 2005 work, arguing that justification is not an internal property John Greco's externalist argument.
Structural approaches to justification often address the "regress problem" or Agrippan trilemma, which evaluates how a chain of reasons can support a belief without descending into circularity or infinite regress Agrippan trilemma evaluation. Foundationalists resolve this by positing that basic beliefs do not require justification from other beliefs regress argument conclusion. Experiential foundationalists specifically argue that ordinary perceptual beliefs are justified by the perceptual experiences themselves perceptual experiences as justification. Conversely, coherentists argue that justification arises from the consistency of a belief with one's broader system of beliefs coherentist view of justification.
Other notable theories include process reliabilism—which holds that a belief is justified if formed by a reliable process type belief from reliable processes—and evidentialism, which posits that justification is entirely a matter of one's evidence evidentialism and evidence. Epistemologists also consider the role of testimony, with some scholars like Jennifer Lackey arguing that testimony is as basic a source of justification as sense-perception or memory testimony as basic source.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Justification is a fundamental normative concept in epistemology, often regarded as a necessary component for distinguishing knowledge from mere true belief. According to Jaegwon Kim, as noted in Wikipedia, modern epistemology is defined by justification; if it were removed, the common-sense meaning of knowledge would collapse. While foundational to the field, the nature and requirements of justification are the subject of extensive debate.
### Theoretical Frameworks
Epistemologists have developed several competing models to explain the structure of justification:
* Foundationalism: This theory posits that basic beliefs do not require justification from other beliefs, but instead derive their status from non-doxastic sources like sensory inputs (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or brute necessity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Coherentism: In contrast, coherentism suggests that justification arises from the mutual support and coherence relations within a person's entire belief system (Rebus Community).
* Reliabilism: This externalist view holds that a belief is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable cognitive process (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
### The Internalist-Externalist Divide
A central tension in contemporary epistemology is the internalist-externalist (IE) debate, which concerns whether the "J-factors" that justify a belief are accessible within a person's mind or depend on external, objective conditions (Philosimplicity; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Internalists argue that justification requires support from mental states (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), while externalists focus on truth-conduciveness and objective probability (Rebus Community).
### Challenges and Limitations
The relationship between justification and knowledge is complicated by the "Gettier problem," which shows that a belief can be both justified and true yet still fail to qualify as knowledge due to epistemic luck (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This has led some theorists to propose alternative approaches: some non-traditional knowledge (NTK) theorists argue that justification is unnecessary if a belief is reliably produced (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), while others, such as Jonathan Kvanvig, suggest that true belief alone may be sufficient (Wikipedia). Furthermore, fallibilism reminds us that while we may possess justified beliefs, absolute certainty regarding the nature of those justifications remains unattainable (Philosimplicity).
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
In epistemology, justification is widely regarded as a fundamental component required to transform a true belief into knowledge 624680a5-5d70-4422-8ccc-189d7be51355, 874a3e20-0e87-44af-adae-d6d4f7664f61. Its primary function is to prevent a true belief from being correct merely by accident 6e6b4e59-a21d-4b7d-97a4-498225efc7c4, 7500fc49-4b67-48b7-8ea1-254d16c2f672. While justification is essential for knowledge, it is conceptually distinct from truth; one cannot know a false proposition, even if one is justified in believing it 7352a3dd-a5b4-48b7-b705-028175c36cf6.
Theoretical approaches to justification are primarily divided into internalism and externalism 76f1e7e7-7e60-4578-a0da-8b0a4756080d. Internalists argue that justification must be based on mental states accessible to the subject 812171f5-9dee-4459-9ca6-1c7393b56c81, whereas externalists, such as those advocating reliabilism, posit that justification depends on factors outside the mind, such as the reliability of the belief-forming process 733d5fde-2704-4e64-87c5-cd733b8a3860, 77c22d23-aa42-4eae-92d3-60c57b43ee30. Various frameworks offer different criteria for what constitutes this support: foundationalism looks for basic beliefs that justify others 63eafcbe-4b09-4507-938b-1b896e5071ce, coherentism examines the web-like structure of interconnected beliefs 7b6120e3-a502-4a6d-b2f4-ff7be3ecc5ed, and evidentialism asserts that justification relies solely on the possession of adequate evidence 6f00b890-d818-47ad-9ac2-05fec101931e.
Debates persist regarding the source and nature of justification. For instance, the epistemology of testimony questions whether information received from others is a basic source of justification 80a3c7ad-2e60-4e0c-9b3e-406a18243805, while critics like Lorraine Code argue that contemporary epistemology's narrow focus on abstract properties like justification neglects the social, moral, and virtuous dimensions of intellectual life 7b523903-a062-46d1-81d7-f9233f7aac5b.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
In epistemology, justification is defined as a property of beliefs that adhere to specific norms regarding what a person should believe normative property of beliefs. It is considered a necessary condition for knowledge, alongside truth knowledge requires justification. Debates regarding justification often center on its structure, source, and accessibility.
Structural theories include foundationalism, which posits that beliefs rest upon a superstructure of basic beliefs foundationalist structure; coherentism, which emphasizes the logical connection between beliefs logical structure of reasons; and infinitism, which suggests an infinite chain of reasons infinite chain of reasons. These theories grapple with the trilemma of providing reasons—either stopping at a basic belief, looping circularly, or continuing infinitely epistemological trilemma.
Regarding the source and internality of justification, internalists, such as mentalist internalists, argue that justification depends on factors accessible within a person’s mind internal factors. Conversely, externalists, including reliabilists, argue that justification results from reliable processes or sources external to the mind external factors. This divide leads to the 'generality problem,' where the difficulty lies in determining the appropriate level of description to assess whether a cognitive process is reliable generality problem. Furthermore, evidentialists maintain that one is justified in believing a claim if they possess sufficient evidence possession of evidence, a view that Hilary Putnam argues is essential to maintaining the normative nature of epistemology normative concepts.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
In epistemology, 'justification' is a technical term used to distinguish well-founded beliefs from mere superstition or lucky guesses distinguishing well-founded beliefs. It is a central component of the traditional approach to knowledge (TK), which posits that a belief must be justified and true—rather than just accidentally correct—to qualify as knowledge knowledge requires justification. Because humans are fallible, this requirement does not necessitate absolute certainty justification without certainty.
Major theoretical frameworks offer competing accounts of how this support relation functions:
* Internalism vs. Externalism: Internalists, such as those discussed in the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, argue that justification depends solely on a subject's mental states internalist justification factors, sometimes framing this as a deontological duty internalism and duty. Conversely, externalists maintain that factors outside the mind—such as the objective reliability of a cognitive process—are necessary to provide the probability required for knowledge external conditions for justification.
* Foundationalism vs. Coherentism: Foundationalists posit that some beliefs are 'basic' and can justify others without requiring justification themselves basic beliefs defined. Coherentists reject this, instead defining justification as a holistic, mutual affirmation within a set of beliefs holistic relationship of beliefs.
* Reliabilism and Virtue Epistemology: Process Reliabilism identifies justification with the reliable production of true beliefs reliable production of truth. Meanwhile, virtue epistemology shifts the focus to the intellectual virtues of the agent agent-focused epistemology.
These theories often contend with the problem of the infinite regress, where any chain of reasons must either end, loop, or continue infinitely Agrippa's global skepticism, and with Gettier cases, where a belief is justified and true but remains lucky Gettier case construction. Modern scholars like Axtell, Carter, and Zagzebski argue that these concepts cannot be fully reduced to non-normative vocabulary non-normative vocabulary limits.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview 100% confidence
In epistemology, justification is a central condition for knowledge, frequently cited as a required component of Justified True Belief (JTB) knowledge defined as JTB. Its primary role is to ensure that a belief is not true merely by luck role of justification. While there is a consensus on its importance, the criteria for what renders a belief justified remain a subject of significant debate.
Key philosophical perspectives on justification include:
* Internalism vs. Externalism: Internalists argue that justification is determined exclusively by a subject's internal mental states internalists accept internal justifications, whereas the debate with externalism centers on whether external circumstances also play a role internalism and externalism debate.
* Reliabilism: This externalist approach posits that justification arises from the reliability of the processes (such as perception or memory) that generate the belief, rather than the mere possession of evidence standard reliabilism asserts. Some forms of reliabilism even treat justification as a property grounded in these reliable processes reliabilism as theory.
* Foundationalism and A Priori Justification: Some perspectives, such as Experiential Foundationalism, link justification to reliable perceptual experiences experiential foundationalists endorse externalism. Conversely, a priori justification is defined by its independence from experience subject justified a priori.
Other theorists emphasize the cognitive requirements of the subject. Richard Fumerton argued that justification necessitates an active grasping of the connection between evidence and the proposition Fumerton argued justification requires, while Jaegwon Kim insisted that justification must be grounded in the factual, non-epistemic properties of a belief Kim stated justification must be.
Ultimately, skepticism challenges the validity of these justifications skepticism denies all justifications, and scholars warn that epistemologists must clearly distinguish between defining the term 'justification' and establishing the specific conditions that make a belief justified to avoid verbal disputes distinguish between definition and conditions.
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 95% confidence
In epistemology, justification is a core concept studied alongside belief and truth to analyze knowledge, as epistemologists study justification (Wikipedia). It ensures beliefs are not merely true by luck, serving this anti-luck role in both traditional and non-traditional knowledge analyses, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Matthias Steup, Ram Neta) anti-luck role of justification. Justification is independent of truth, allowing justified false beliefs due to fallibility or true but unjustified ones from luck, per the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy truth-justification independence. A belief is justified if obtained properly via sound reasoning and evidence, not luck (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) justified via sound reasoning.
Major theories include foundationalism, requiring explanation of basic beliefs' justification and their support for nonbasic ones (Stanford Encyclopedia; Steup, Neta) foundationalist justification requirements; reliabilism, where justification stems from reliable processes like perception or memory, existing as a theory of justification or knowledge (Stanford; Steup, Neta) reliabilism on reliable processes; and coherentism, criticized for demanding implausible background beliefs from ordinary subjects (Stanford; Steup, Neta) coherentism's excessive demands. Anti-reductionism treats testimony as a basic justification source absent doubts (Stanford) testimony as basic justification. Internalists limit justification to internal factors, contrasting externalist reliabilism and virtue approaches (Philosimplicity; Internet Encyclopedia). Challenges include Agrippa's trilemma fueling skepticism (Rebus Community; Todd R. Long), the generality problem for process reliability (Internet Encyclopedia), and regress issues in perceptual content (Stanford). Specific sources like memory retain justification post-forgetting (Internet Encyclopedia), while perceptual experiences' justificatory role is tested via thought experiments (Stanford; Steup, Neta).
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast 85% confidence
In epistemology, justification is a core component of knowledge, defined within the Justified True Belief (JTB) framework as requiring belief, truth, and justification JTB definition. According to Steup (2010), as cited in the Cambodian Education Forum, true belief lacks knowledge without proper justification, as it could result from luck Steup on true belief. Major debates center on internalism versus externalism: internalism ties justification to accessible mental states, while externalism, exemplified by reliabilism—the leading externalist theory—assesses it via reliable belief sources internalism-externalism debate reliabilism as externalism. Experiential foundationalists endorse externalism for perceptual justification when experiences reliably link to true beliefs experiential foundationalism. The Perceptual Evidence Reliabilist (PER) principle specifies how perceptual representations confer justification normally PER principle. Testimony generates justification, as explored by Stephen Wright in works like 'The Transmission of Knowledge and Justification' (2016) Wright on testimony Wright's works, and debated historically between Hume and Reid on reducibility to other justifications Hume-Reid debate. Jaegwon Kim critiques Quine's naturalized epistemology for sidelining justification in favor of causal links, insisting justification rests on factual properties Kim on Quine Kim quote. Collective epistemology examines group belief justification collective epistemology, and Avicenna's principles are analyzed by Deborah L. Black Avicenna's justification. Skepticism rejects all justifications skepticism on justification, while evidentialism allows recursive definitions via justified beliefs evidentialist recursion. Key sources include Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Facts (318)
Sources
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 86 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.
claimExternalists argue that animals and small children possess knowledge and justified beliefs, which they claim cannot be justified in the way evidentialists conceive of justification.
claimExplanatory coherentism and reliability coherentism, as versions of doxastic coherentism, are criticized for making excessive intellectual demands on ordinary subjects who are unlikely to hold the specific background beliefs required for justification.
claimExperiential foundationalism posits that ordinary perceptual beliefs are justified by the perceptual experiences that give rise to them.
claimExperiential foundationalists argue that perception is a source of justification, which necessitates answering the 'J-question' regarding why perception serves as a source of justification.
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.
procedureTo test the claim that perceptual experience is necessarily a source of justification, one can use thought experiments to conceive of a possible world where a person sees an object that looks blue, but that experience provides no justification for believing the object is blue.
claimFor a foundationalist account of justification to be plausible, it must explain what makes basic beliefs justified and how basic beliefs justify nonbasic beliefs.
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.
claimEpistemological questions regarding memory include whether memorial seemings provide prima facie justification for a proposition, or if memory only provides justification if it is coherent or objectively reliable.
claimExplanatory coherentism accounts for a lack of justification by noting that if an alternative explanation for an experience (E) is as good as or better than the hypothesis (H), the subject is not justified in believing (H).
claimThe regress argument concludes that if justified beliefs exist, there must be basic beliefs that do not derive their justification from other beliefs.
claimIndependence foundationalists argue that perceptual experiences are necessarily a source of justification, similar to how mathematical truths like 'the sum of two and two is four' are necessarily true.
claimReliabilists hold that a belief is justified if and only if it results from a cognitive origin that is reliable, meaning an origin that tends to produce true beliefs and properly probabilifies the belief.
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.
claimThe compromise position posits that justification for attributing reliability to perceptual experiences consists of memories of past perceptual success.
claimJohn Greco argued in his 2005 paper "Justification is Not Internal" that justification is not an internal property, contrasting with internalist views.
claimWhen discussing the nature of justification, epistemologists must distinguish between the definition of the word 'justification' and the factors that make beliefs justified to avoid mere verbal disputes.
claimAccessibility internalism posits that justification is internal because J-factors are always recognizable on reflection.
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).
claimThe regress argument for foundationalism posits that for any justified belief (B1), if it is not basic, it must be justified by another belief (B2), which in turn requires justification, leading to an infinite chain or a loop unless the chain terminates in a basic belief.
accountIn the 'barn-facades' thought experiment, Henry drives through a rural area filled with barn facades that look like real barns, but he happens to look at the one and only real barn and forms the belief that there is a barn there. While his belief is justified by his visual experience (according to TK) or by the reliable cognitive process of vision (according to NTK), it is widely agreed by epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge because it is true merely by luck; had he looked at a facade, he would have formed the same belief.
claimIndependence foundationalism is a theory that views the status of perception as a source of justification as a matter of brute necessity, adopting an epistemic conception of basicality.
claimAttempting to define a better explanation by appealing to whether a person is already justified in believing the components of that explanation creates a circular argument, as explanatory coherentism is intended to explain the source of justification itself.
claimUnder the compromise position, the justification for a belief (H) is the conjunction of the perceptual experience (E) and the track-record memories (M).
claimA proposed solution to distinguish between better and worse explanations is to assert that if one explanation (E1) includes a proposition that a subject is not justified in believing, while another explanation (E2) does not, then (E2) is the better explanation.
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.
claimSome Non-traditional knowledge (NTK) theorists bypass the justification condition entirely by conceiving of knowledge as reliably produced true belief, rendering justification unnecessary.
claimPhilosophers such as Descartes, Locke, Moore, and Chisholm historically utilized a deontological understanding of the concept of justification.
claimExperiential foundationalism combines two crucial ideas: (i) when a justified belief is basic, its justification is not owed to any other belief; (ii) what in fact justifies basic beliefs are experiences.
formulaEpistemic Basicality (EB) defines a subject's justified belief that p as basic if and only if the subject's justification for believing that p does not depend on any justification the subject possesses for believing a further proposition, q.
claimWhen evaluating the justification of beliefs, the relevant obligations are those that arise from the pursuit of truth, rather than moral or prudential obligations used to evaluate actions.
perspectiveAdvocates of deontological justification (DJ) argue that a lack of control over beliefs does not prevent the use of the term 'justification' in a deontological sense.
claimThe dispute over whether justification is internal or external is a disagreement regarding the nature of J-factors.
claimEpistemology as the study of justified belief addresses the concept of justification, what makes beliefs justified, and whether justification is internal or external to the mind.
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 moderate version of naturalistic epistemology aims to identify how knowledge and justification are anchored in the natural world, similar to how physics explains natural phenomena like heat or thunder.
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.
claimAccording to the compromise position, a perceptual experience (E) alone is insufficient to justify a perceptual belief; it must be accompanied by track-record memories (M) that provide justification for considering the experience reliable.
claimThe role of justification in epistemology is to ensure that a true belief is not true merely by accident, which is accomplished when a true belief instantiates the property of proper probabilification.
claimThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) asserts that knowledge requires justification to ensure that a subject's correct belief is not merely a matter of luck.
claimCoherentism characterizes knowledge and justification as a structure resembling a web, where the strength of any specific area depends on the strength of the surrounding areas.
perspectiveThe dominant contemporary view in epistemology is that the deontological understanding of justification is unsuitable for the purposes of the field.
claimDoxastic Coherentism asserts that every justified belief receives its justification from other beliefs located within its epistemic neighborhood.
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.
claimPerceptual experiences do not arbitrate between dependence coherentism and independence foundationalism because both theories appeal to perceptual experiences to explain why perceptual beliefs are justified.
claimDemanding justification for a raw perceptual experience, such as why a headache or an itch is justified, is considered a misuse of the term 'justification'.
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).
claimA posteriori or empirical knowledge is defined as justification and knowledge that is not a priori.
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.
claimExperiential foundationalists who prefer the EB (Experiential Basicality) definition of basicality cannot argue that perceptual experiences are a source of justification because one has a reason (R) for believing they are, as that reason would constitute justification for another belief, which contradicts the EB definition of basicality.
claimExperiential foundationalism is a theory in epistemology that posits perceptual experiences as a source of justification, which coherentists challenge by asking why perceptual experiences serve this function (the J-question).
claimReliabilists reject access internalism because they argue that if the justification of beliefs is determined by the reliability of belief sources, justification is not always recognizable upon reflection.
claimFoundationalism characterizes knowledge and justification as a structure resembling a building, where a superstructure rests upon a foundation of basic beliefs.
claimAn argument for the internality of justification posits that because a subject (Tim*) who is internally the same as another subject (Tim) but externally different shares the same justificational status for their beliefs, internal factors must be what justify beliefs.
perspectiveThe proposal to define better explanations by referencing justified beliefs is criticized for circular reasoning, as explanatory coherentism is intended to explain the source of justification itself.
claimExternalists argue that the justification of beliefs is external, meaning it results from origination in reliable processes rather than the possession of evidence.
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.
claimMentalist internalism posits that justification is internal because J-factors are always mental states.
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.
claimIn epistemology, the term 'justification' is often used in a technical sense that deviates from ordinary usage to better suit the needs of the field.
claimIndependence foundationalism defines a basic belief that p as a belief whose justification does not depend on having any justification for believing another proposition q, asserting that a basic belief's justification is completely independent of having justification for any other beliefs.
claimOne argument for the internality of justification is that justification is deontological, meaning it is a matter of duty-fulfillment, and duty-fulfillment is an internal process.
claimIn contemporary epistemology, there is an ongoing debate between internalists and externalists regarding whether justification is internal or external.
claimA priori knowledge consists of beliefs that are true, justified a priori, and not 'gettiered'.
claimExperiential foundationalism is supported by citing cases like the blue hat example, which makes it plausible to assume that perceptual experiences are a source of justification.
claimFoundationalists typically define the justificatory relation between basic and nonbasic beliefs as non-deductive, meaning a basic belief B justifies a nonbasic belief B* if B makes B* likely to be true, rather than requiring B to entail B*.
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.
claimReliabilism asserts that justification is not necessary for knowledge, and that reliably produced true belief is sufficient for knowledge, provided the notion of reliability is refined to rule out Gettier cases.
claimExplanatory coherentism faces a circularity problem if it attempts to define what makes one explanation better than another by using the concept of justification, as this would make the account uninformative.
claimInternalists argue that perceptual experiences can serve as a source of justification because it is a necessary truth that certain perceptual experiences justify certain perceptual beliefs, regardless of whether those experiences are reliable.
claimReliabilism asserts that the justification of beliefs is a function of the reliability of belief sources, such as memorial, perceptual, and introspective states and processes, rather than evidence.
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.
claimExternalists assert that justification requires external conditions because those conditions provide the objective probability necessary for knowledge.
claimPrivilege foundationalism faces difficulty in accounting for the justification of ordinary perceptual beliefs because such beliefs are typically not based on further beliefs about one's own perceptual experiences.
claimReliabilism exists in two forms: as a theory of justification, which views justification as an important ingredient of knowledge grounded in reliability, and as a theory of knowledge, which defines knowledge as reliably produced true belief without requiring justification.
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.
claimStandard reliabilism asserts that justification is derived from the reliability of the types of processes in which beliefs originate, such as perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition, rather than the mere possession of evidence.
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.
claimExperiential foundationalists who prefer Experiential Foundationalism (EB) can endorse externalism to argue that perceptual experiences are a source of justification if, and only if, those experiences are of types that are reliably associated with true resulting beliefs.
Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 52 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.
claimMemory allows individuals to retain knowledge from the past even if the original justification for that knowledge is forgotten.
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.
claimInternalism is vulnerable to the isolation objection, requiring any complete internalist account of justification to address it.
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.
claimFoundationalism requires that basic beliefs must either be self-justified or derive their justification from a non-doxastic source, such as sensory inputs.
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.
claimIn typical instances of knowledge, the factors responsible for the justification of a belief are also responsible for its truth, such as when a properly functioning clock provides both justification and truth for a belief about the time.
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.
claimThere are two primary approaches to construing justification: in terms of the believer’s mind (internalism) or in terms of the world (externalism).
claimExternalism posits that factors external to a believer's mind determine whether that believer is justified.
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.
claimRoderick Chisholm was one of the first authors to provide a systematic analysis of knowledge, and his account of justification is classified as foundationalist.
claimTo account for human fallibility, internalists argue that for belief A to be appropriately based on belief B, the truth of belief B must make it likely or probable that belief A is true, rather than requiring that B strictly entails A.
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.
claimCoherentism requires that coherence be defined as more than logical consistency, necessitating a positive support relationship, such as an explanatory relationship, between members of a belief set for the beliefs to be individually justified.
claimBasic beliefs are defined in foundationalism as beliefs that are able to confer justification on other, non-basic beliefs without having their own justification conferred upon them by other beliefs.
perspectiveKeith Lehrer argues that a reliable cognitive process cannot yield justification unless the believer is aware that the process is reliable, citing the case of Mr. Truetemp, whose temperature beliefs are unjustified despite being formed by a reliable process because he is ignorant of the tempucomp device.
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.
claimKnowledge requires not only true belief but also that the belief be formed in the 'right way', which is referred to as justification.
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.
claimThe requirement for justification in knowledge does not necessitate absolute certainty, as humans are fallible beings.
claimSkeptics may argue that beliefs are either not true or not justified, with the argument that beliefs are not justified being more common than the argument that they are not true.
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.
claimReliabilism is the most prominent version of externalism and suggests considering the source of a belief to determine justification.
Epistemic Justification – Introduction to Philosophy: Epistemology press.rebus.community 31 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.
claimThe Agrippan trilemma, also known as the regress problem, is a first-century argument for global skepticism about justification and knowledge, attributed to the philosopher Agrippa.
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.'
perspectiveExternalists argue that the internalist understanding of justification's truth-conduciveness is too weak because it allows for the majority of justified beliefs to be false.
claimExternalist theories of justification require a no-defeaters clause to avoid implausible implications, such as process reliabilism incorrectly labeling a belief as justified when the believer has reason to think the process is unreliable.
claimEvidentialists are epistemologists who hold the view that justification is entirely a matter of a person’s evidence.
claimA major challenge for the theory of infinitism is explaining how a human being could possess an infinite series of available reasons.
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.
claimPure coherentism faces challenges in explaining how a belief can be part of its own justification without circularity, defining precise coherence relations, and accounting for how personal experiences figure into justification.
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.
claimExternalists claim their theories explain the truth-conduciveness of justification, asserting that justified beliefs are objectively likely to be true because they are more often true than false.
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.
claimThe view that justification does not entail truth is a position in epistemology.
perspectiveInternalists argue that the externalist understanding of justification's truth-conduciveness is too strong, because a belief could be objectively likely to be true even if a person has no good reason to believe the relevant proposition, which internalists consider epistemically irrational.
claimTruth is a requirement for knowledge, but it is a distinct requirement from justification; one cannot know a proposition to be true if that proposition is false.
claimPure coherentism is the theory that a belief is justified if and only if it coheres well with all other beliefs a person holds.
claimAgrippa, a first-century Pyrrhonist philosopher, proposed an argument for global skepticism about justification and knowledge based on the structure of reasons.
claimSuspension of judgment is the uniquely rational attitude to adopt when the scales of justification for a proposition are evenly balanced.
perspectiveEvidentialist foundationalists agree that justification has a foundationalist structure and is supported by evidence, but they disagree on the specific mechanisms of justification for basic and non-basic beliefs.
claimAgrippa's trilemma is an argument put forward by the first-century Pyrrhonist philosopher Agrippa for global skepticism about justification and knowledge.
claimVirtue epistemology defines justification as a matter of having one’s beliefs produced by a properly functioning, reliable, truth-aimed cognitive system.
claimInfinitism is a theory of justification that posits that the structure of justification is neither foundationalist nor coherentist, but rather consists of an infinite number of appropriately structured, available reasons upon which a justified belief rests.
claimExternalist theories of justification posit that justification depends on factors external to a person's mind, such as causes, processes, or functions, rather than solely on a person's mental states.
claimExplanationists are epistemologists who believe that justification is a matter of which propositions provide the best explanations for a person.
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.
claimUnlike pure coherentism, explanationism incorporates experiences into the constitution of justification, allowing experiences to serve as foundations that stop a regress of justification.
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.
claimFoundationalists are epistemologists who believe that justification has a structure consisting of justified foundational (or basic) beliefs that serve as the epistemic foundation for justified non-basic beliefs.
Epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 22 facts
claimJustification does not guarantee truth, as a person can form a justified belief that is false based on strong but misleading evidence.
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.
claimFoundationalists maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs.
claimEpistemologists often identify justification as a key component of knowledge.
claimJustification by testimony relies on information one person communicates to another, which can occur through talking or through other forms such as letters, newspapers, and blogs.
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.
claimEpistemologists use epistemic norms as criteria to assess the cognitive quality of beliefs, such as their justification and rationality.
claimEpistemological disagreements often stem from disputes about the nature and function of foundational concepts, such as the definition of knowledge and the role of justification.
claimThe trilemma in epistemology distinguishes three methods for providing reasons for a statement: finding a justification that requires no further reason, using circular reasoning by repeating a previously stated justification, or providing an infinite chain of justification.
claimEpistemologists investigate sources of justification, including perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony, to discover how knowledge arises.
claimSources of justification are cognitive capacities or methods through which people acquire justification, with commonly discussed sources including perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
claimReliabilism is an externalist theory asserting that a reliable connection between belief and truth is required for justification.
claimRationality is closely related to justification, and the terms 'rational belief' and 'justified belief' are sometimes used interchangeably.
claimIn epistemology, justification is defined as a property of beliefs that adhere to specific norms regarding what a person should believe.
claimJustification serves to distinguish well-founded beliefs from superstition and lucky guesses.
claimRationalists understand reason as a source of justification for non-empirical facts, allowing people to know about mathematical, logical, and conceptual truths.
claimMemory functions as a source of justification by retaining and recalling information provided by other sources, such as remembering a previously perceived phone number.
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.
claimInternalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances.
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 20 facts
quoteJennifer Lackey (2005) states: “non–reductionists maintain that testimony is just as basic a source of justification (knowledge, warrant, entitlement, and so forth) as sense-perception, memory, inference, and the like”.
quotePeter Graham states: "That a source is a source of defeaters for beliefs from another source, or even from itself, does not show that the other source depends for justification on inferential support from another source, or even itself. … The fact that my perception defeats your testimony does not show that testimony is inferential and not direct. Indeed, the fact that testimony-based beliefs sometimes defeat perceptual beliefs does not show that testimony is prior to perception."
claimTestimonial liberals who require evidence of reliability for knowledge or justification face an argument that they must also concede that lacking evidence of reliability results in a lack of knowledge or justification.
claimThe TEST principle states: 'If a subject S (seemingly) comprehends a (seeming) presentation-as-true by a (seeming) speaker that [p], and if that causes or sustains in the normal way S’s belief that [p], then that confers justification on S’s belief that [p].'
claimLaurence BonJour (1980, 2003) argues that if one accepts that knowledge or justification is defeated by evidence of unreliability or contrary evidence, one must also accept that it is defeated by a lack of evidence regarding the reliability of the source.
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.
claimRobert Audi (1997) is demanding regarding testimonially-based justification but lenient regarding testimonially-based knowledge because he does not consider justification a requirement for knowledge.
claimEpistemology involves assigning statuses such as 'knowledge' or 'justification' to beliefs based on whether those beliefs meet specific epistemic standards.
claimTyler Burge (1993) is lenient regarding testimonial "entitlement" but restricts the term "justification" to cases where the subject is aware of an entitlement.
claimTestimonial liberals contend that there is good a priori reason to believe that testimonially-based beliefs are justified.
perspectiveThe Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Epistemology of Testimony classifies approaches to testimonially-based justification as "Liberal" or "Conservative," where Liberals are less demanding and Conservatives are more demanding regarding what counts as justified belief or knowledge.
claimTestimonial liberals who accept that a subject lacks justification or knowledge when they have evidence that a proposition is false or that a source is unreliable should also concede that the subject lacks knowledge or justification when they have no evidence that the source is reliable.
claimPeter Graham argues that the principle TEST, which states that a testifier's statement supplies pro tanto justification, is an a priori necessary conceptual truth, even though testifiers are not reliable in all possible worlds.
claimThe MEM principle states: 'If S seems to remember that [p] and this causes or sustains in the normal way S’s belief that [p], then that confers justification on S’s belief that [p].'
referenceGreen (2007) defends an approach to knowledge or justification that imposes a no-defeater requirement but not a positive-reasons-to-believe-in-reliability condition, using the legal handling of fraud cases as an analogy.
claimThe epistemology of testimony focuses primarily on the general nature of testimonial knowledge and justification rather than specifically on human testimony.
claimThe debate between David Hume and Thomas Reid regarding internal conditions on testimonially-based beliefs can be characterized by whether testimonially-based justification is reducible to other forms of justification.
claimSome epistemologists are skeptical of the 'fake barn case,' arguing that these cases do not clearly demonstrate a failure of justification or knowledge.
claimRobert Audi distinguishes between hypothetical and actual inferences, holding that testimonially-based beliefs are formed directly but are justified on the basis of other beliefs that could support the testimonially-based belief without being part of its actual genesis.
claimThe PER principle states: 'If S’s perceptual system represents an object as F (where F is a perceptible property), and this causes or sustains in the normal way S’s belief of x that it is F, then that confers justification on S’s belief that x is F.'
What Is Epistemology? Pt. 3: The Nature of Justification and Belief philosimplicity.com Oct 23, 2017 17 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 addresses the logical problem of infinite regress, which is the assumption that every justification requires a further justification.
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.
claimEpistemological positions are not mutually exclusive; for example, an individual can be an externalist regarding knowledge while being an internalist regarding justification, or simultaneously a fallibilist and a foundationalist.
claimInfinitism is an epistemological theory that accepts the idea that all justifications require further justifications, effectively rejecting the infinite regress constraints of both coherentism and foundationalism.
claimInternalists in epistemology only accept internal justifications for beliefs.
claimSkepticism is the epistemological position that denies all justifications any validity, asserting that nothing can be proven.
Virtue Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 17 facts
claimErnest Sosa argues that standard foundationalist accounts of justification are flawed because they rely on the premise that the justification of non-basic beliefs derives from basic beliefs, which are themselves justified by sensory experience, memory, and rational insight.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig proposes an epistemological perspective that prioritizes the social and cross-temporal dimensions of cognitive life over questions regarding the nature and limits of knowledge and justification.
claimThe author asserts that the exercise of intellectual virtue is not a necessary condition for knowledge or justification.
claimVirtue reliabilism and virtue responsibilism are not necessarily incompatible, as a virtue reliabilist can hold that a faculty-based approach is most promising for questions concerning the nature of knowledge and justification, while still maintaining that there are substantive epistemological questions to be pursued regarding the character traits that interest virtue responsibilists.
claimVirtue responsibilism faces a difficulty as an analysis of knowledge or justification because knowledge and justification are often acquired passively, making few demands on the character of the cognitive agent.
claimLorraine Code claims that an adequate conception of intellectual virtues cannot be achieved through standard methodologies of contemporary epistemology, which she believes are too narrow and overemphasize abstract doxastic properties like knowledge and justification.
claimErnest Sosa claims that justification consists in a belief having its source in an intellectual virtue, which allows for a belief to be justified without the believer being aware of the source or having a reason for thinking the belief is true.
perspectiveLorraine Code's epistemological view prioritizes the value of virtuous cognitive character, the social and moral dimensions of intellectual life, and the role of agency in inquiry, rather than offering a definition of knowledge or justification.
claimVirtue reliabilist accounts of knowledge and justification are versions of epistemological externalism, which may prove unsatisfying to those with internalist sympathies.
claimVirtue reliabilist accounts of knowledge and justification are versions of epistemological externalism, as they deny that the factors grounding one's justification must be cognitively accessible from one's first-person or internal perspective.
claimLinda Zagzebski's analysis of knowledge defines knowledge as belief arising from acts of intellectual virtue, rather than true belief, because the justification or warrant condition entails the truth condition.
claimErnest Sosa claims that an adequate version of foundationalism must explain the apparent unity of the various foundationalist principles that connect the ultimate sources of justification with the beliefs they justify.
claimErnest Sosa's proposed view of justification is an externalist version of foundationalism because a belief can be justified by an intellectual virtue without the person holding the belief being internally or subjectively aware of that source.
claimInternalism defines justification for believing a claim as the possession of an adequate reason for thinking that the claim is true.
claimThe author argues that if virtue concepts are not central to an analysis of knowledge or justification, it is difficult to defend the claim that intellectual virtues have epistemological importance.
claimCoherentists and foundationalists generally agree that justification for believing a claim requires having a good reason for thinking that the claim is true, but they disagree on the logical structure of that reason.
claimVirtue reliabilists primarily focus on providing a virtue-based account of knowledge or justification, whereas virtue responsibilists often pursue different and less traditional epistemological projects.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2019 Edition) plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 13 facts
claimAn alternative view to evidentialism suggests that the obligations relevant to assessing whether a belief is justified are those that require one to follow the correct epistemic norms in the pursuit of truth.
claimThe dispute between internalism and externalism regarding justification is a dispute about the nature of J-factors.
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.
claimA common objection to the idea that perceptual experiences have propositional content is that they would then require justification themselves, potentially failing to stop the justificatory regress.
perspectiveEpistemologists debate whether memorial seemings provide justification for a belief: some argue it is a necessary truth that a memorial seeming provides prima facie justification, while coherentists argue it requires reason to think memory is reliable, and externalists argue it requires that memory is in fact reliable.
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.
claimEvidentialism is an internalist theory of justification, whereas reliabilism is an externalist theory of justification.
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.
claimEpistemologists must distinguish between the definition of the word 'justification' and the conditions that make beliefs justified to avoid verbal disputes arising from different conceptual understandings.
Naturalized Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 5, 2001 13 facts
claimPhilosophers utilize various principles to assess knowledge and justification, including inference to the best explanation, principles about coherence, and the conservation of belief.
claimJaegwon Kim argues that Willard Van Orman Quine's naturalized epistemology studies a different topic than traditional epistemology, specifically shifting focus from questions of rationality, justification, and knowledge to the causal connections between sensory evidence and beliefs.
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.
claimThe debate between naturalists and non-naturalists can be understood as a disagreement over whether knowledge and justification can be defined using naturalistically acceptable causal and reliabilist terms or if they require naturalistically suspect evaluative terms.
claimIf epistemic support facts are natural facts and justification is defined by evidence possessed and epistemic support, then justification is defined in entirely natural terms, removing the need for evidentialists to rely on supervenience to defend naturalism.
claimReliabilism maintains that the justification of a belief depends on whether the process that formed the belief is a reliable source of true beliefs.
claimEvidentialism holds that people who possess the same evidence are necessarily justified in believing the same things.
claimThe recursive nature of defining evidence through justified beliefs does not inherently invalidate the naturalistic status of the evidentialist definition of justification.
claimTraditional epistemologists debate whether knowledge and justification require conclusive reasons, strong reasons, or if they rely on factors like reliability, causal connectedness, explanatory power, or wide acceptance.
claimTraditional epistemology focuses on questions of rationality, justification, and whether an epistemic support relation holds between basic evidence and beliefs about the world.
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.'
referenceRichard Fumerton argued in 1995 that justification requires grasping the connection between evidence and the proposition believed.
Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research cefcambodia.com Jan 21, 2023 12 facts
referenceMatthias Steup authored the entry 'Epistemology from A to Z [Justification]' in the book 'A companion to epistemology' (2nd Edition), published by Blackwell Publishing in 2010.
claimFallibilists argue that the possibility of a justification being false does not necessarily mean the belief itself is false, and that knowledge can exist without certainty.
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.
perspectivePritchard (2018) posits that for a true belief to become knowledge, it must be justified, meaning the believer must have good reasons to think that what they believe is true.
claimSteup (2010) identifies justification as a key component required to transform a true belief into knowledge.
claimRescher (2003) asserts that knowledge is not simply a matter of having a true belief that is somehow justified, but must be appropriately justified.
perspectiveResearchers must provide sufficient and appropriate justification for their knowledge claims and for the choice of an epistemological approach adopted to guide the conduct of research.
perspectiveSteup (2010) argues that true belief without proper justification is insufficient for a knowledge claim because a belief can be true due to luck or other circumstances.
accountRescher (2003) illustrates the problem of justification with an example: A person believes Smith is in London (which is false, as Smith is in Manchester), and because Smith being in London entails Smith being in England, the person believes Smith is in England; while the belief is true, the person does not 'know' Smith is in England because the justification is false.
referenceMoser (2009) defines epistemology as the study of the nature of knowledge and justification, specifically regarding defining components, substantive conditions or sources, and the limits of knowledge and justification.
claimSufficient epistemic support from non-memorial grounds is required as a means of justification for a memory-based belief to be considered knowledge.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu Apr 1, 2021 5 facts
referenceWright (2016a) provides a discussion of epistemological views where testimony transmits knowledge while simultaneously generating justification.
claimRobert Audi (1997) maintains that while testimony can generate justification, it can only transmit knowledge.
referenceStephen Wright authored several works on knowledge transmission, including the articles 'In Defence of Transmission' (2015), 'Circular Testimony' (2016), 'The Transmission of Knowledge and Justification' (2016), 'Sincerity and Transmission' (2016), and the book 'Knowledge Transmission' (2019).
perspectiveThomas Reid (1983) argues that whatever reasons exist for considering perception a basic source of justification also apply to testimony as a basic source of justification.
claimEpistemologists debate whether testimony is a basic source of justification or if it can be reduced to other epistemic sources like perception, memory, and inference.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Feb 26, 2001 5 facts
claimThe central question in the epistemology of testimony is whether testimony should be regarded as a basic source of justification, meaning a source whose reliability can be taken for granted unless there are specific reasons for doubt.
claimTheories that deny testimony is a basic source of justification argue that testimony-based beliefs are only justified if the audience possesses adequate independent reasons to consider the speaker trustworthy.
claimAnti-reductionism is the view that testimony is a basic source of justification, meaning testimony-based beliefs are justified as long as the audience has no reasons for doubt.
claimProcess Reliabilism defines justification as the reliable production of true belief, involving either a cognitive process that reliably produces true belief or a cognitive process that takes justified beliefs as inputs and reliably produces true beliefs as outputs.
referenceFrederick F. Schmitt's 2006 paper 'Testimonial Justification and Transindividual Reasons' explores how testimony provides justification for belief.
Virtue epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 3 facts
claimVirtue epistemologists distinguish between 'eliminative' virtue epistemology, which replaces traditional concepts like knowledge and justification with intellectual virtue and vice, and 'non-eliminative' virtue epistemology, which retains traditional concepts while using virtue to provide a substantive explanation of them.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig argues that true belief is sufficient to maximize truth and avoid error, suggesting that justification should be dropped from the equation of knowledge.
claimVirtue epistemology attempts to solve problems in modern epistemology, such as justification and reliabilism, by focusing on the knower as an agent, similar to how virtue ethics focuses on moral agents.
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 3 facts
claimCollective epistemology investigates the conditions under which the beliefs of groups can be considered justified or knowledge, given that groups are often spoken of as having intentions and beliefs.
claimFallibilism assumes that truth and justification can diverge.
claimAn individual has stronger than usual justification to believe a speaker's testimony if the speaker is known to be honest and knowledgeable about the topic, whereas an individual is generally not justified in believing testimony from someone known to be prone to lying.
Naturalized epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 3 facts
claimJaegwon Kim argues that modern epistemology is defined by the normative concepts of justification and reliability, and that removing these concepts eliminates the common sense meaning of knowledge.
quoteJaegwon Kim asserts that the defining characteristic of an epistemological study is the notion of justification, stating: "If justification drops out of epistemology, knowledge itself drops out of epistemology."
perspectiveHilary Putnam argues that replacing traditional epistemology with naturalized epistemology would eliminate the normative, which is necessary for concepts like justification, rational acceptability, and warranted assertibility.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 3 facts
claimConventional virtue epistemology (VE) utilizes the resources of virtue epistemology to address standard questions in contemporary Anglophone epistemology, such as providing analyses or definitions of knowledge and justification, solving puzzles like the Gettier problem and the lottery problem, constructing counterexamples, and confronting the skeptic.
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.
claimPhilosophers including Axtell & Carter (2008), McDowell (1994), Roberts & Wood (2007), and Zagzebski (1996, 2009) argue that epistemological terms like 'knowledge', 'evidence', 'justification', 'duty', and 'virtue' cannot be adequately defined or fully explained in purely non-normative vocabulary.
Naturalistic Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 2 facts
claimInternalists hold that a belief is justified only if it is appropriately related to other mental states, whereas externalists hold that justification comes at least partly from external factors, such as the reliability of the process that generated the belief.
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 Jul 24, 2024 2 facts
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.
claimCandidates for the additional feature required to transform true belief into knowledge include justification (the ability to provide a reason), warrant (being well-positioned to know, such as through training or pattern recognition), and accuracy that manifests epistemic virtue (expressing reliable dispositions like good memory).
7.1 What Epistemology Studies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax openstax.org Jun 15, 2022 2 facts
claimUnderstanding the process of conceptual analysis is essential for following debates in epistemological theorizing regarding knowledge and justification.
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.
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 2 facts
claimDoxastic coherentism, which includes both explanatory and reliability coherentism, faces the objection that it makes excessive intellectual demands on ordinary subjects by assuming they hold specific background beliefs required for justification.
claimExperiential foundationalists face the "J-question," which asks why perceptual experiences serve as a source of justification.
Basic epistemology and justification of true beliefs? : r/askphilosophy reddit.com Dec 3, 2015 1 fact
claimIn the Standard View of knowledge, justification is a necessary component for something to be considered knowledge.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 1 fact
referenceDeborah L. Black examines certitude, justification, and knowledge principles in Avicenna's epistemology in her 2013 chapter 'Certitude, justification, and the principles of knowledge in Avicenna’s epistemology', published in 'Interpreting Avicenna' by Cambridge University Press.
Naturalism in Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jan 8, 2016 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 - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy rep.routledge.com 1 fact
claimSome virtue epistemology theories propose that traditional concepts of justification or knowledge can be analyzed in terms of intellectual virtue, while others argue that traditional concepts are defective or uninteresting and should be replaced by the notion of intellectual virtue.
Understanding Epistemology and Justified True Belief - Quizlet quizlet.com Dec 9, 2024 1 fact
claimKnowledge is defined as Justified True Belief (JTB), which requires three components: belief, truth, and justification.