Well, it's good for getting triggered responses from certain folks...

Anyway, the point? The point of the regress problem? To problematize the whole notion of axioms.

That'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.

That way the only claim is made by the knowledge claimant, so the onus is on them to justify their claim to knowledge.

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.

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.

Another thing is it really doesn't matter when shared experiences are concerned. Ice is cold to touch for all and this fact can be used without worrying about infinite regress. The problem arises when we're dealing with concepts - invented and therefore subject to disagreement.

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

But these are not random questions. Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer?

That way the only claim is made by the knowledge claimant, so the onus is on them to justify their claim to knowledge. — 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.

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 would also like to see certain people less sure of themselves. Good answer.

The point of the regress problem? To problematize the whole notion of axioms — Ying

What does the regress argument have to say about 'self evident truths'?

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

I think knowledge is very mysterious just like consciousness and I don't think the regress argument does it justice.

What does the regress argument have to say about 'self evident truths'? — Purple Pond

What does argumentative theory say about leading questions? My advise to you is to try such nonsense on someone else.

But these are not random questions. Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer? — Purple Pond

When it matters, when decisions are going to be made that ajffect people and the world, you and I are responsible not just for knowing what we need to know, but for knowing how we know what we need to know.

The regress argument is something which analytic philosophers discuss. The argument makes assumptions about the meaning of "knowledge" and "justification". I don't think there is any point to that argument. Its a fiction invented by (some) analytic philosophers which makes it look like scepticism has lots of philosophical assumptions you can just reject.

There is something very similar to to regress argument discussed by Sextus Empiricus and picked up by Descartes. That issue is just this: why should I believe any of the things I do believe? Is there any reason at all -beyond my mere psychological conviction- to think that my beliefs are true? For any belief you have, it can simply be asked "why?", and if you provise an argument for that belief, the premises are equally open to question. Scepticism is the fear that these questions in the end have no answers and suspension of judgement in light of that.

This issue doesn't make the assumptions you mention. It doesn't even invoke the concept of knowledge.

And what is the point of the regress argument? So what if all knowledge at bottom is without support? Therefore what? — Purple Pond

The point of the issue just described is that reason is exposed as resting on faith, at least if there are no answers to all the "why" questions. Every belief turns out to be a sort of bias we have, or a faith we cling to.

Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer? — Purple Pond

All you are accepting in asking "why" questions is that it is coherent to ask that question and it hasn't already been answered.

I can’t help but think that Godel’s theorem has some bearing on the question. It would seem to undermine the first term in the argument, viz, that all knowledge is propositional. At least some things you know, you know without knowing why you know. But if you didn’t know them, then you wouldn’t be capable of knowing anything. So knowledge does rest on intuitive certainty, but then trying to articulate what those certainties are, changes their nature by making them explicit.

askfgbaksjfgbaskjfgasnfkiuj

Purple Pond--

Let me first answer a question in the later part of your post:

Can all these assumptions be supported?

No, if you're referring to the propositions consisting of the "If" premises and "Then" conclusions of the if-then facts. But the truth of the propositions isn't the important thing. It's the if-then facts themselves that are the basis of our experience-stories, It isn't about the truth of the propositions (an "If" premise and a "Then" conclusion) in those if-then facts.

How can the if-then facts be real if their propositions can't be said to be true? Who offered a guarantee about "real"? I suggest that "real" has nothing to do with the if-then facts, and the system of inter-referring if-then facts that is a person's life-experience possibility-story.

Forget about "real".

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.

Yes, when you're talking about the truth of the propositions,.

How many assumptions does the regress argument make? Here's a list I've came up with.

All knowledge is propositional.

I don't agree that the propositions themselves, or their truth, are the basis of our experience. It's the if-then facts that are the basis of our experience-story and the world in which it takes place.

Knowledge of a proposition requires support by other propositions.

Yes, of course the truth of a "Then" proposition depends on the truth of some "If" proposition.

Those other propositions also require support. And so on...
There is something wrong with an infinite chain of justification

What's wrong with it is that it needn't be true. Whether the propositions are true or false, there nevertheless inevitably are the abstract if-then facts. Call them unreal or nonexistent if you want to, It doesn't matter. I make no claim about "real" or "existent".

And what is the point of the regress argument? So what if all knowledge at bottom is without support? Therefore what?

There's no need for support, because there's no need for any of the propositions to be true, There are the abstract if-then facts, and what more do you want?

Someone can argue that those abstract facts "aren't". Fine, I'm not making any claims about that. "Are" or "Aren't", "Real", "Existent", or not, whatever that would mean.

Whether those abstract if-then facts "are" or "aren't", they can refer to eachother, in systems, one of which has the events and relations of your experience.

Forget about "Are", "Aren't","real" and "existent"/.

Michael Ossipoff

askuftganoslkufgjlfamsfasf