Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    DB alone is insufficient to fully account for the justifi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    DB alone is insufficient to fully account for the justification of basic beliefs

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.DB only specifies how belief (B) is not justified (i.e., not by inference from other beliefs)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An account of what positively justifies belief (B) is needed in addition to DB
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.DB's negative specification—that basic beliefs are not inferentially justified—is itself a substantive positive constraint that delimits the justificatory structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For foundationalists like Roderick Chisholm, the non-inferential character of basic beliefs is not a gap but the very feature that confers their epistemic autonomy and regress-stopping function.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A structural account of justification need not provide a causal or genetic story; specifying the logical role of basic beliefs within the system is sufficient for a complete foundationalist theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sellars and later coherentists conflate the genetic question of what causes belief with the normative question of what justifies it, a distinction Laurence BonJour later acknowledged undermines the demand for a positive account beyond DB.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If DB entails that basic beliefs are justified by non-doxastic states such as perceptual experience, as argued by dogmatists like James Pryor, then DB implicitly contains a positive justificatory story rather than leaving one absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A structural account of justification need not provide a causal or genetic story...An account of what positively justifies belief (B) is needed in addition to DBDB only specifies how belief (B) is not justified (i.e., not by inference from o...DB's negative specification—that basic beliefs are not inferentially justified—i...
    +3 moreShow less
    For foundationalists like Roderick Chisholm, the non-inferential character of ba...If DB entails that basic beliefs are justified by non-doxastic states such as pe...Sellars and later coherentists conflate the genetic question of what causes beli...

    Similar

    But needing those additional justified beliefs means B's justification...89%If B1 is not basic, its justification must come from another justified...86%If B2 is not basic, its justification must come from another justified...86%If there are justified beliefs, there must be basic beliefs.86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    Let us turn to the question of where the justification that attaches to (B) might come from, if we think of basicality as defined by DB. Note that DB merely tells us how (B) is not justified. It says nothing about how (B) is justified. DB, therefore, does not answer that question. What we need, in addition to DB, is an account of what it is that justifies a belief such as (B). According to one strand of foundationalist thought, (B) is justified because it can’t be false, doubted, or corrected by
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit