As I said above, there are two parts to this view as I construct it, a "critical" part whereby we can somehow or another find limits to possibilities and separate things that are possible from things that are not, and a "liberal" part which says that you're free to hold beliefs without yet justifying them from the ground up. — Pfhorrest
Perhaps it's the wording; perhaps you mean something like 'free to entertain possibilities, without justifying them from the ground up'. This — Janus
Yes, I think perhaps you're attaching too much significance to the word "believe". To me, to believe something just means to think it's true, not any kind of special faithful commitment to it. — Pfhorrest
I think the problem is not with 'justification' but with 'true' in jtb. First off it ends up implying knowledge is immaculate which it need not be, however scary this is. We can (and do) categorize things as knowledge even if they may turn out to be false. Certainly scientists, at least officially, do this and are proud to counterpose this to religious people who they consider not open to revision. But secondly I think JTB is misleading because it is as if there are two criteria, when really there is just one 'justification.' Now if one wants to argue that something can be justified but false, well, if we know that about belief X it is no longer well justified. (and of course that falsification might, in the long run, be revised, but that's another story). And notice I slipped in the word 'well'. Justification includes a matter of degree. Some kind of adverb is involved and people differ on both the degree and the criteria hidden in those adverbs. Different degrees of rigor. Different criteria that lead to something being considered justified. And then in the context of other research/knowledge that might undermine the best little deductions or study results. (at least for now). I say, take out the 'true'. Best justified gets to stand. But then I add in that it does not make sense to only have beliefs that are rationally justified, certainly not consciously, but that's another kettle of propositions.IOW, under a critical rationalist conception of knowledge, there is no Gettier problem at all, because justification in such a paradigm doesn't mean what Gettier assumes it does. — Pfhorrest
it is as if there are two criteria, when really there is just one 'justification.' — Coben
I'd just like to add that fideism is oddly binary and extreme. IOW it prioritizes faith, at least when it is centered on religion (and perhaps philosophy) and denigrates reason.
I think that's problematic when taken as one of the two main choices and when applied to beliefs in general.
There is no reason I can see not to have a mixed epistemology. I think we HAVE to have one to manage to live. With beliefs being arrived at in a variety of ways. Adn one need not denigrate the various methods and choose just one. — Coben
OK, though you do seem to understand their objections. But then you clearly understand your position better than I do, so perhaps that makes the difference.the dynamics I find odd
— Coben
Me too. — Pfhorrest
The picture made it more clear, and I generally understood.I’m not sure I know what you’re asking, but maybe a picture will clarify my answer anyway: — Pfhorrest
*Exactly. Often I find that it can seem like a person arrives at their beliefs only via science and deduction (from scientific models), when in fact they have a wide range of beliefs arrived at via intuition, authority, unconscious processes. They then expect others to live up to to standards they do not. Now sometimes the belief they are criticizing is some larger concept like God, but in fact they themselves act in the world based on intuition, unconscious process and authority in ways that do directly affect other people.I find that people generally tend to follow that as well, but only until it becomes inconvenient for them, and they often switch to the alternatives when it comes to what standards they hold other people to. — Pfhorrest
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.