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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Foundationalism is not the only acceptable solution to th... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Foundationalism is not the only acceptable solution to the epistemic regress problem

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coherentism, as defended by BonJour in 'The Structure of Empirical Knowledge', justifies beliefs through their mutual coherence within a system, not via foundational anchors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sufficiently coherent belief system can achieve epistemic justification without any beliefs functioning as non-inferentially justified foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The coherentist framework successfully handles the regress by dissolving rather than terminating the chain, offering a structurally distinct and viable alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Contextualism, as developed by DeRose and Lewis, holds that what counts as justified belief is determined by shifting contextual standards rather than a fixed foundational base.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If justificatory standards are context-sensitive, then the regress terminates not in privileged foundational beliefs but in pragmatically accepted presuppositions relative to a context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This entails that foundationalism's universal claim to be the sole regress-stopper is empirically and semantically undermined by the plurality of legitimate epistemic contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Infinitism has been elaborately defended in recent literature as the correct solution to the regress problem
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Circularity should not be dismissed too quickly as an alternative solution
      ?

      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 sufficiently coherent belief system can achieve epistemic justification withou...Circularity should not be dismissed too quickly as an alternative solutionCoherentism, as defended by BonJour in 'The Structure of Empirical Knowledge', j...Contextualism, as developed by DeRose and Lewis, holds that what counts as justi...
    +4 moreShow less
    If justificatory standards are context-sensitive, then the regress terminates no...Infinitism has been elaborately defended in recent literature as the correct sol...The coherentist framework successfully handles the regress by dissolving rather ...This entails that foundationalism's universal claim to be the sole regress-stopp...

    Similar

    Infinitism has been elaborately defended in recent literature as the c...87%The regress problem identified by Lewis Carroll applies to inferential...79%The main work in Bradley's regress argument is done by premises (1), (...76%The epistemic reliability of the Vedas is precisely the issue that nee...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    This argument suffers from various weaknesses. First, we may wonder whether the alternatives to foundationalism are really unacceptable. In the recent literature on this subject, we actually find an elaborate defense of the position that infinitism is the correct solution to the regress problem.[50] Nor should circularity be dismissed too quickly. The issue is not whether a simple argument of the form p therefore p can justify the belief that p. Of course it cannot. Rather, the issue is ultima
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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