But these are not random questions. Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer?hat's all fair enough, if someone puts a regress argument. But the alternative is to just question 'how do you know that?' and continue questioning until the person you are questioning either walks off or realises that the knowledge of which they felt so sure actually rests on an infinite, circular or ungrounded chain of prior assumptions. — andrewk
It's a nice strategy but if I were the knowledge claimant I would ask for the reason for the constant requests for justification.That way the only claim is made by the knowledge claimant, so the onus is on them to justify their claim to knowledge. — andrewk
I would also like to see certain people less sure of themselves. Good answer.The point? The point is to encourage greater epistemic humility. Since much of the harm in the world seems to be done by people who are very sure of themselves, anything we can do to make such people less sure of themselves seems likely to reduce the amount of harm. — andrewk
I think knowledge is very mysterious just like consciousness and I don't think the regress argument does it justice.To me the infinite regress argument is both good and bad. Good because it sets a high standard for epistemology, thereby assuring quality in knowledge. Bad because it can't be answered in a favorable way. — TheMadFool
What does the regress argument have to say about 'self evident truths'? — Purple Pond
But these are not random questions. Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer? — Purple Pond
And what is the point of the regress argument? So what if all knowledge at bottom is without support? Therefore what? — Purple Pond
Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer? — Purple Pond
Can all these assumptions be supported?
The epistemic regress problem goes like this:
— Purple Pond
In order to have knowledge of a proposition you have to rely on other propositions for support. Those other propositions in turn have to be supported by other propositions. Since you can't have justification for every proposition without going into an infinite regress, or going in a circle, any knowledge of a proposition relies on propositions without support. So any knowledge is at bottom without support.
How many assumptions does the regress argument make? Here's a list I've came up with.
All knowledge is propositional.
Knowledge of a proposition requires support by other propositions.
Those other propositions also require support. And so on...
There is something wrong with an infinite chain of justification
And what is the point of the regress argument? So what if all knowledge at bottom is without support? Therefore what?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.