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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Foundationalism is not the only acceptable solution to the epistemic regress problem

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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