The Structure of Justification

1
Lecture 3

• The Structure of Justification

2
Arts Career Expo (ACE)

• Wednesday Jan 21st
• 5 830pm
• SUB Ballroom and Classrooms 2nd floor.
• 5
• www.arts.ubc.ca/careerexpo

3

• Jills office hours Thursday 4-5.
• Jamies office E274

4

• The Epistemic Regress Problem

5

• What justifies your belief that P?
• Some other belief that Q
• What justifies your belief Q?
• Some other belief that R.

6

• The epistemic regress argument is a different
  argument for skepticism than the Matrix argument.
  
• It is a much more devastating argument, attacking
  all knowledge, not just knowledge of the external
  world.

7
Four responses

• 1. Foundationalism Certain beliefs are
  justified, but not by other beliefs.
• 2. Coherentism Q justifies P and.P justifies Q.
• 3. Infinitism P is justified by an infinite
  chain of beliefs.
• 4. Skepticism P is not justified

8
Foundationalism The Pyramid
P41

• Foundationalists hold that our knowledge has a
  structure obeying the following rules.
• A) All nodes below a node directly serve jointly
  to support it.
• B) Each node must be a proposition that S is
  justified in believing at t.
• C) If a node is not basic (for S at t), it must
  have successors.
• D) Each branch of the epistemic pyramid must
  terminate.

P31
P21
P21
P13
P12
P11
Basic Beliefs
9
Coherentism The Raft

• Any part of the boat can
• be fixed (but not all at once).
• Any part of ones set of
• beliefs can be justified
• (but not all at once).

P5
P1
P3
P4
P2
P6
10
Infinitism The Eternal Pyramid

• A) All nodes below a node
• directly serve jointly to
• support it.
• B) Each node must be a proposition that S is
  justified in believing at t.
• C) Every node must have successors.
• D) No branch of the epistemic pyramid terminates.

11
Roderick Chisholm

• 1916-1999
• American philosopher
• Taught at Brown
• Best known for his
• foundationalist theory of
• knowledge.

12
Foundationalism

• Certain beliefs are basic.
• They are justified, but not by other beliefs.
• So what does justify them?
• But first, perhaps this whole enterprise of
  justifying basic beliefs is a mistake

13

• We shouldnt ask what justifies basic beliefs!
• Why?
• 1. We should give up on the quest for certainty.
• 2. There is nothing we can do to justify basic
  beliefs.
• 3. No-one is challenging us to justify our basic
  beliefs. (And if they do we should ignore them.)

14

• 1. We should give up on the quest for certainty.
• Response Were not asking for certainty. Were
  asking for knowledge, and knowledge requires
  justification.

15

• 2. There is nothing we can do to justify basic
  beliefs.
• Response Were not being asked to do anything.
  Were being asked what our existing justification
  is.

16

• 3. No-one is challenging us to justify out bascis
  beliefs. (And if they do we should ignore those
  pesky skeptics.)
• Response Im not a
• skeptic. I know we have
• justification and I just want to
• figure out what it is.

17
Background

• The belief that I am having a red experience is
  different from the belief that I am having a red
  experience.

Beliefs
Experiences
18
A Foundationalist Theory

• Basic beliefs are self-justifying

19
(No Transcript)
20
Beliefs about your own attitudes

• () I believe that snow is white.
• How would I express my justification for ()?
• I believe that snow is white
• So the belief is self-justifying.

21

• The same goes for all beliefs about ones own
  attitudes
• I hope for world peace.
• I fear the reaper.
• I desire some BC bud.

22
A second category of self-justifying beliefs

• Beliefs expressing current experience.
• I am hungry
• What justifies my belief that I am hungry?
• The fact that I am hungry
• I am hungry

23
Clarification1 A non-self-justifying belief

• There lies a key
• What justifies my belief that there lies a key?
• The fact that there lies a key?
• No. The key may be cleverly camouflaged.

24

• There is a person
• Does the fact that there is a person justify
  the belief that there is a person?
• No, not if the person is well camouflaged.

25
Clarification 2

• Self-justifying seems to imply that the belief
  is justified by the belief.
• But this is clearly false.
• Suppose someone comes to believe I am hungry
  for no reason.
• The belief is not justified.

26
Self-Justifying

• Chisholm means that the fact that justifies the
  belief is the same as the content of the belief.
• The belief I am hungry is justified by the fact
  that I am hungry.
• If the fact wasnt true, the belief wouldnt be
  justified.

27
Hans Reichenbach

• 1891-1953
• German born.
• Taught at UCLA
• Logical empiricist

28
Reichenbachs Objection to Foundationalism

• Im having a white experience
• The present way of appearing is the way in which
  white objects ordinarily appear.
• And this statement is not self-justified it
  relies on facts about how white objects normally
  appear.
• It connects your current experience to other
  experiences of whiteness.

29
Objection continued

• In Chisholms terms
• The fact that The present way of appearing is
  the way in which white objects ordinarily appear
  does not justify the belief that The present way
  of appearing is the way in which white objects
  ordinarily appear.
• So the belief is not self-justifying after all.

30
The Question

• Can we formulate a significant appears statement
  without comparing some appearance with some other
  appearance?
• If yes, foundationalism wins.
• If no, foundationalism loses.

31

• Can we formulate a significant appears statement
  without comparing some appearance with some other
  appearance?
• Yes - Perhaps we are just making a claim about
  our current appearances, and should replace
  white with this.
• i.e. I am being appeared to this way.
• But now we barely seem to have any kind of
  judgement at all.

32

• Can we formulate a significant appears statement
  without comparing some appearance with some other
  appearance?
• An argument for No
• 1. When you believe this appears white you are
  assuming you are using the word white in the
  way you have formerly used it.
• 2. Any justification for this assumption will
  refer to past experiences.
• 3. Therefore, the justification of this appears
  white depends on all these past experiences.

33

• The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
• Distinguish
• What is said by the words
• The assumptions concerning the adequacy of those
  words for expressing what is said.
• Lots of stuff goes into (b) that doesnt go into
  the justification of (a).
• Lots of assumptions are required for the words to
  express what is said (b), but they are no part of
  the justification of (a).

34

• Suppose a Frenchman says
• There are apples in the basket.
• He means to say there are
• potatoes in the basket.
• His mistaken assumptions about
• his words dont affect his justification
• for believing There are apples in the basket.

35
Wilfrid Sellars

• 1912-1989
• American philosopher
• Taught at Pittsburgh
• Best known for his
• critique of foundationalism
• Developed the incompatible
• food triad puzzle.

36
Authority

• Sellars claims that any sentence that expresses
  knowledge must have authority.

37
(No Transcript)
38

• Any sentence that expresses knowledge must be
  justified.