Stephen Gillie I'm not sure that the 5 Why's is specifically a systems engineering tool. My first exposure to the 5 Why's tool was through Six Sigma. It's definitely a useful tool to identify root causes though.
I think that in practice a lot of people are coherentists. Namely, most scientists fit under this category. Scientific measurements and instruments are usually validated by testing how well they pair up with the existing organon, which is in turn adjusted to fit new discoveries. Even if you trace back the philosophy of science to its most basic level, the credibility of science is defended with pragmatism--science generates useful beliefs. That is to say, science generates a coherent picture; it doesn't matter if this picture holds up to an ideal of Truth, what matters is that its structure does not crumble when faced with experience.
Leonardo Santos it almost seems like science ties with all 3 of them. If we accept that everything is constantly changing, then we must assert that science will endlessly find new discoveries. Or because science is relied heavily on skepticism, it must endure an infinite regress to correct and change theories always in light of new and infinite discoveries. Science perhaps does not fit with foundationalism, but again with skepticism it does work as an axiomatic argument but where truth will forever stand inconclusive. Lastly the circular argument, which the practice of science seems to justify... Anyway just some gibberish that came into mind cheers
@@samo917that’s kind of the issue I have with differing to experience in this way: don’t you already need to have some kind of justified framework of beliefs to be able to judge your experience by in the first place?
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Best explanation ever! Really enjoyed this. BTW in regards to the parent and child situational, as being the parent answering the child's questions, then at some point I would find an opening in the line of questions from the child to turn the questions back on the child so that the child must then find answers for themselves. For example when the child asked "Why do we have to go home?" then I would answer not with a statement but with a question that directs the child's mind to where I want it to go, such as, "Are you hungry?" If the child says "Yes" then I would ask (not tell) the child "Then don't you think we should go home to eat now?" But if the child says "No" then I am screwed until I find another such opening. Maybe a more open question would be better, such as, "Well how are you feeling right now?" Then if the child says "Hungry" then well you know the rest.
Red Sparks this is very cool. Some epistemologists had called that way of acquiring justification as dialectical justification because you build your justification by answering questions as you do in a dialogue.
Karl Popper says your belief can probably be true even if you don't have any reasons... Your belief can be untrue even if you have tons of reasons and experience. But if experience is unlogical to your believe your belief is probably untrue... What he wanna say is that you can not justify your belief by reasons or experience... You only can falsify your belief...
Dagobert Duck if your belief is true without reasons then it is only accidentally true. And of course, reasons are not infallible: one could have very good reasons for a false belief. But one could interpret what you are saying as a form of coherentism: logical coherence justifies beliefs.
Many explorations (ideas we got) was kind of accidents... We can not 100% verify (justify) our belief. We can not 100% falsify our belief. =Y Because we are probably unable to see holism, see Duhem-Quine Thesis... There is not more to say in philosopy...
A belief can be true without justification (which is mentioned in the video), but then it cannot qualify as *knowledge*. As for falsificationism, it is full of problems...
Poppers Falsification is great but it has it's limits. One example is probability, science uses probabilities all of the time and they are not falsifiable. Probability is often used in the field of quantum mechanics.
Bruh, the child's questions is only covered by infinitislism. How does the child question fit into the other two? Please answer, I'm still at the park with this kid
Dad (D): "Time to go" Kid (K): "Why?" D: "Because we have to get home" K: "Why?" D: "Because we have to make supper." K: "Why?" D: "Because we are animals and animals need to eat." K: "Why?" D: "Because we need to get rid of bad stuff from our bodies and replace them with good stuff." K: "Why?" D: "Because life is a continuous active process of action, and if that process stops, life stops." K: "Why?" D: "There is no why, there is either life, with food, and playing at the park, or there is non-life with no food and no playing at the park. If we want to play at the park, we need to eat or else can not play at the park any more because we won't be able to move. So if you want to play at the park tomorrow, you have to make sure your body has food."
Reminds me of the book borrowing analogy. Bob asks June if he can borrow a book. She say's 'sure, but I have to get it from Harry first'. Then when she asks Harry, Harry say's "sure, but I have to get it from Sarah first". And when he asks Sarah, she say's "Sure, but I have to get it from Dave first", etc etc. If nobody owns the book to begin with, you will never get that book. I'm not sure what that proves exactly! Maybe, if there are small justifications, then there must be an ultimate justification that needs no justification itself. Otherwise, if there's no book to begin with, then all our little justifications are basically meaningless....perhaps?!
Regarding 3:45 What about a fifth response to the regress problem: They regress for a while and then end in a loop. Like B-A-C-D-F-H-J-L-J-L-F... What if it's like Benfords mathematical law, where it doesn't matter from which believe or number you start you always end up with the same loop in ultimately. Perhaps a back and forth between a pragmatic, a evolutionary and a more experiential belief. Imagining that this foundational loup is does not consist of believes that we can summon up consciously but rather subconscious ones.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Fallacious arguments are precisely where epistemic regress is not important. If two people who have no fallacies in their thinking at all disagree, it must boil down to different foundations of believes. If two irrational people argue, there might be no regress necessary because they probably just disagree due to fallacies they did not notice.
@@hanshintermann1551 How can two opposing arguments both be without a fallacy? Im not trying to claim it cant happen. Im just not familiar with an example and would like to hear one.
@@jasonspades5628 Well, let's use social security as an example. Of course people can disagree about how much the government should get involved to provide healthcare, shelter, food etc. for a number of reasons, and a lot of the time the reasons are misinformation or fallacious reasoning. But sometimes it's just because one person values people's financial freedom more, and the other person values social safety more.
does it mean that in coherentism there is already an established truth wherein we only put into the "web" those things that corresponds and or fit with that established truth and reject if it does not?
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
I’d flip that pyramid around, there is a foundation that can be reached. But the implications will not stop. There is only a peak at this particular point in time
Is it possible to have a mix of these justifications? Foundationalism for some of your beliefs, infinitism for others, and coherentism for others? Or do all beliefs have to follow one system
Usually epistemologists view these 3 models as incompatibles. But some of them tried to accommodate them, as we can see in Susan Haack’s funderentism (fundationalism+coherentism).
It's not a problem, that's a illusion, there is no paradox in infinite cause after cause after cause, it's only a problem for finite minds. But circular causal loop definitely has a problem, because what caused the causal loop, therefore infinite branching of causes is the most solid and valid, and any circular causation are just finite features of infinite causal propagation.
Yes they mix well, math has foundations, pragmatic beliefs that may not be provable but lead to beneficial beliefs are not foundational. But then again we can twist words to mean what we want them to mean so it depends on our given word games.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
@thatchinaboi USA Popper's solution is a combination of infinitism and coherentism. Your (2) is false. We do make sense and use of infinite functions despite them never halting. E.g. calculus and pi. In epistemology it means no more than there is always more to discover. In critical rationalist terms there are always errors/problems to be solved that in turn create better problems.
I'm not clear on how infinitism supports belief. How is an infinite chain of reasoning even possible? It would seem inevitable that you would come to some kind of end, such as an empirical or a priori reason, or else you would end up with circular reasoning. After all, beliefs are not numbers, people have to engage in reasoning to come up with a reason. On the other hand, a hybrid of foundationalism and coherentism probably comes closer to the truth. Some things have simple linear reasoning behind them, while other things rely upon a 'foundation' (bad joke) or web of interrelated beliefs that are complementary or mutually supportive.
@@dlon8899 Sorry, but I don't understand. Survival and self-gratification are good reasons for lying to yourself, i.e. self-justification. But that's more psychology than philosophical epistemology. Related to this video, I'm more interested in the philosophical side. I'm looking for ways to support beliefs that are true, or as close as we can get to knowing that something is true, not in justifying false beliefs.
@@karmalodro1593 no. Just a different perspective. It allows someone to learn from both frames of mind and thus potentially gain a greater understanding.
Coherentism is right: the world is indeed a complex system. But Fundamentalism is also right since humans can reorganize this reality through thoughts and words into a linear form.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Is there a certain kind of belief where if one denies it, then he contradicts himself? If so, can this belief be a good candidate for a belief that requires no further justification? I was thinking of the statement, "truth exists." If one denies that statement, then he contradicts himself.
The philosophy of Objectivism does this. Reality is something you can be aware of. If you hit a contradiction you know that it must be the way it is because anything else would be a violation of the law of identity and the law of causality (which is just the law of identity applied to actions)
I think we have to look at what we can know and what is knowable. It may be that there is some final end. It may be that we will never get there in which case it becomes to sense and purposes the infinite case. However, for practical purposes we solve this by some method of self referral - you can see this a lot when you delve into science e.g. what is energy. How useful this self referral system is depends on how big a circle it takes in since this expands its predictive quality and power.
I think it depends on whether or not epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions. If you could say "what is the reason" a pencil falls down on this earth then you could give an explanation by refering to general laws of nature, x is caused by y which is caused by z. If you apply epistemic regression on what I'd call existentialist choices, you might have a harder time. Like why do you believe in god? There's probably an end to your line of argumentation where you can't describe a deeper level of causation as to why or why not you believe in god. Do we as animals shaped by evolution have that deep of a mind that our drives and decisions can be justified on an infinetely deep level?
Philosophical Overdose 😳 How do you know that a human mind is finite? At which stage of our evolution did such a mind cease to develop? Perhaps your point is better associated with our physical brain, as it is constrained by our 💀?
There are several. One is known as the ac/dc objection. Another has to do with the transmission of justification. Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start
I think the epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions at least back to the big bang. We run out of data at that point. That doesn't mean there isn't any data. It just means we don't have access to whatever data is there if any. Maybe the question boils down to whether or not infinity exists actually. Mathematics uses infinity but that is potential infinity. The video stated that neither the skeptics nor the others accepted infinitism.
I think the reason infinitism doesn't work is because we treat it like it doesn't have a real world repercussion. " If you have infinite reasons, then you have infinite time to explain it to me"
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
None of those seemed quite right until you started talking about coherentism. In my experience that's the way it works. You can go in a straight line for a bit but ultimately reasons for believing different things influence and support one another.
Some potential responses to this epistemic problem I've thought of 1) Is it a justified true belief that we need a justified true belief for all of your justified true beliefs? 2) Deny the regress problem. It seems it's true in itself, essentially.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
2 года назад+1
I love Philosophy, but I feel sometimes it can be useless. If you ask why many times, you reach to the truth. And the truth most of the time is very abstract. It maybe nonsense to ask deep meaning of our behavior as it is always ended up to the abstract idea. But close to that truth we may justify the core reason.
The skeptics are right. Trying to shoe horn all this nonsense is ridiculous. Beliefs don't have to be justified or true, even if it does have more practical benefits. Seeing as most of our beliefs are inevitably going to be based on shoddy evidence, doesn't it seem like unjustified and untrue beliefs would be a more interesting topic?
the point of epistemology is to arrive at truth and to delineate between untruth and truth aka knowledge. If you don't think knowing things is important, than yeah, this is ridiculous.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Knowledge is seperate from belief. This applies to belief not knowledge. Foundational axipms are required for any philosophy of epistemology. Coherentism must also have foundational axioms. The regress problem ends with the foundational axioms.
Coherentisms "axiom" is the trustworthiness of the belief-system itself, and this can be questioned... and justified in many different ways (depending on witch version of coherentism one subscribes to). So coherentism does not have a foundation that doesn´t requier further justification.
Niklas Wingren well put it. And the same applies to infinitism. I think that the problem here is to understand that foundationalists need to say that foundational beliefs are different “in nature” of other beliefs. They call it basic beliefs to mark that distinction.
Why is "Why do you trust what you saw on the news?" the right why question to ask? It isn't as simple as "Why?". How do you know when you're justified to add an addendum to "Why?" for a given context?
Pragmatic emergence justifies an end point to regress. A demarcation of useful and useless causality to a given scenerio The child asks why, why, why... There is a point where the answers are not serving a use for the initial claim. Although their may be many, maybe even infinite questions and answers that are true and interesting, the justification is use. Similar to Wittgensteins claim that meaning is use.
Jasper O'Reilly for some reason I was not notified of your response. I think you should tag my name next time since I randomly noticed you responded. I guess I'm attaching the concept of strong emergence to epistemic regress. I think it's accurate for now but in the future it may not be good enough. I see things like strong emergence and the Butterfly Effect, and much of so called randomness as our ignorance of the variables. Some things are just too complex for our ape brains and the computers we've made.
It's not a problem, that's a illusion, there is no paradox in infinite cause after cause after cause, it's only a problem for finite minds. But circular causal loop definitely has a problem, because what caused the causal loop, therefore infinite branching of causes is the most solid and valid, and any circular causation are just finite features of infinite causal propagation.
although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. Surah 53 verse 28
There is no regress problem if you are aware that reality is what it is and they is no such thing as "Reality as it really is" or "Reality as it really isn't". At a certain point you hit a wall that if this was not the case it would contradict the law of identity, and so you can call that exercise done and dusted.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Objectivists claim that three axioms provide the underpinnings of knowledge. 1. Existence exists (there is something) 2. Consciousness perceives existence 3. To exist is to be something (A=A) Objectivists say that in the very act of trying to deny any of these axioms, the denier would actually end up affirming these axioms.
But there's no guarantee that consciousness perceives things that exist correctly. There's no guarantee that our phenomenal experience corresponds to the noumenal world and I don't see an obvious way to link those two with just these axioms.
Because beliefs are necessary to consciously act. Pouring water into a glass rest on the belief that the glass can hold water and that water can be poured. People choose do things because they have some belief about effects those actions will have.
Did anybody understand whats wrong with asking why why why? It felt as it got brushed off a bit and didnt really get touched upon, anybody has an answer? Why should I believe, for example, that the real world is real?
I think Infinitism was dismissed because it's the most unsatisfying answer. It's the only one that implies you can never truly know anything. And that's why it's also the most valid option. Because any belief has angle that could show it's possibly not true. And if you can't find one, someone else can.
All of these are doing different ways of not admitting they don't know. Foundationalism is using special pleading for It's foundation. Infinitism has no reason for saying those reasons when nothing in reality that we know of shows such. And Coherentism will eventually end up with having to admit they don't know or make some excuse.
A belief that is circular can be pejorative and fallacious. Not saying that is always the case. For example christian theists say jesus or yahweh is god because the bible says it is true, this is a circular arguement that goes nowhere without good evidence or epistemology.
Why didnt you comment on the problem of the criterion? It goes hand in hand with Munchhausen's Trilemma. It even applies to Fallibilism and Rationalism.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
@@thatchinaboi1 I would disagree with the premise "Not all axioms are assumed true." Give me an example of an axiom that is not assumed true. I deny that any proposition can be self-evident. Logic, as well as, mathematics and numbers requires relations and if relations are themselves incoherent as I would argue then not proposition can be self-evident. What do you mean by self-evident? True without requiring proof or reasoning? But the question is how do you know which brings us back the problem of the criterion. I would also disagree with your false dichotomy charge since foundherentism is a foundationalism in disguise. c.f. Haack's Foundherentism Is a Foundationalism by P. Tramel Self-evident propositions are assumed true. Otherwise, what do you mean by something is self evident. Ofcourse, this depends on your theory of truth. Claiming something is 'logically certain to be true and .... logically irrefutable.' Suggests implicitly that for something to be true, it must conform to logic. Therefore, you are using methodism to solve the problem of the criterion because it works with no way to justify what makes such a methodology truth bearing. The corollary is supposed to show that the conclusion can never be attained, since it is the person who argues against the corollary must be able to prove it is false, not the other way around. the conclusion does not seek to prove anything. It is simply highlighting that if justification is required for knowledge and all possibilities are flawed then the onus would be on the one who claims justification is possible to justify that statement. Munchhausen’s Trilemma is NOT self-defeating since it is not a proposition, theory or statement. It is a conjunction of several inconsistent but intuitive propositions. So it cannot be true or false since it is a set of propositions. To claim the conclusion is a self-refuting proposition, you would be equivocating between justification and truth. Since the conclusion itself cannot be justified then it presents the paradox it was meant to. Since the conclusion itself may lack justification, the onus would be one the person who denies it justification for an alternative since the conclusion logically follows. "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth" The Trilemma's conclusion has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with justification. What are the 'Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions' that you are referring to?
Out of all of them foundationalism is the least persuasive. Foundationalism is only acceptable to theists. I think a hybrid of infinitism and coherantism to be the most accurate. Especially In an infinite universe/multiverse. Although, from our human perspective which is severely limited we must arrive at pure skepticism. We can never say that we know anything to be true or justified with a capital T or capital J. (We can only say things are true or justified with a lowercase t or j). Until we fully understand consciousness we can’t even really have meaningful conclusions.
As im watching this especially when describing whether things end or go around. I have narrowed ut down to 3 exampls. Eeny meeny miney mo (end) "This is the song that never ends" (infinity) "John jacob Jingle Heimer. schmitt" (around in a circle). Lol you're welcome.
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vZtQXteAE-w/mqdefault.jpg)
It would be great if at the end of each video you had a few book recommendations for the people who want to study on said subject.
Z library and just search up “epistemology”
There's a Systems Engineering concept called "5 Whys", where you take any operational situation and go at least 5 regressions.
Stephen Gillie I'm not sure that the 5 Why's is specifically a systems engineering tool. My first exposure to the 5 Why's tool was through Six Sigma. It's definitely a useful tool to identify root causes though.
I think that in practice a lot of people are coherentists. Namely, most scientists fit under this category. Scientific measurements and instruments are usually validated by testing how well they pair up with the existing organon, which is in turn adjusted to fit new discoveries.
Even if you trace back the philosophy of science to its most basic level, the credibility of science is defended with pragmatism--science generates useful beliefs. That is to say, science generates a coherent picture; it doesn't matter if this picture holds up to an ideal of Truth, what matters is that its structure does not crumble when faced with experience.
Leonardo Santos ok Thomas Kuhn. :)
Leonardo Santos it almost seems like science ties with all 3 of them.
If we accept that everything is constantly changing, then we must assert that science will endlessly find new discoveries. Or because science is relied heavily on skepticism, it must endure an infinite regress to correct and change theories always in light of new and infinite discoveries.
Science perhaps does not fit with foundationalism, but again with skepticism it does work as an axiomatic argument but where truth will forever stand inconclusive.
Lastly the circular argument, which the practice of science seems to justify...
Anyway just some gibberish that came into mind cheers
I like it. However, how can you tell that something is coherent or not?
Science deals with infinite progress by predictions. Any scientist who fits his model with new discoveries is a pseudoscientist
@@samo917that’s kind of the issue I have with differing to experience in this way: don’t you already need to have some kind of justified framework of beliefs to be able to judge your experience by in the first place?
Btw, the three options (foundation, infinite, circular) is what is colled Munchhausen trilemma or Agrippan trilemma.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Best explanation ever! Really enjoyed this. BTW in regards to the parent and child situational, as being the parent answering the child's questions, then at some point I would find an opening in the line of questions from the child to turn the questions back on the child so that the child must then find answers for themselves. For example when the child asked "Why do we have to go home?" then I would answer not with a statement but with a question that directs the child's mind to where I want it to go, such as, "Are you hungry?" If the child says "Yes" then I would ask (not tell) the child "Then don't you think we should go home to eat now?" But if the child says "No" then I am screwed until I find another such opening. Maybe a more open question would be better, such as, "Well how are you feeling right now?" Then if the child says "Hungry" then well you know the rest.
Red Sparks this is very cool. Some epistemologists had called that way of acquiring justification as dialectical justification because you build your justification by answering questions as you do in a dialogue.
Thanks for that information on dialectical justification. I was doing it but didn't know I was doing it :)
That methode is well known. It's called obfuscation.
Karl Popper says your belief can probably be true even if you don't have any reasons... Your belief can be untrue even if you have tons of reasons and experience. But if experience is unlogical to your believe your belief is probably untrue... What he wanna say is that you can not justify your belief by reasons or experience... You only can falsify your belief...
Dagobert Duck if your belief is true without reasons then it is only accidentally true. And of course, reasons are not infallible: one could have very good reasons for a false belief. But one could interpret what you are saying as a form of coherentism: logical coherence justifies beliefs.
Many explorations (ideas we got) was kind of accidents... We can not 100% verify (justify) our belief. We can not 100% falsify our belief. =Y Because we are probably unable to see holism, see Duhem-Quine Thesis... There is not more to say in philosopy...
A belief can be true without justification (which is mentioned in the video), but then it cannot qualify as *knowledge*.
As for falsificationism, it is full of problems...
Poppers Falsification is great but it has it's limits. One example is probability, science uses probabilities all of the time and they are not falsifiable. Probability is often used in the field of quantum mechanics.
Hecatonicosachoron examples of problems?
Bruh, the child's questions is only covered by infinitislism. How does the child question fit into the other two?
Please answer, I'm still at the park with this kid
When the dad responds: because I sais so, then we have the foundation
Dad (D): "Time to go"
Kid (K): "Why?"
D: "Because we have to get home"
K: "Why?"
D: "Because we have to make supper."
K: "Why?"
D: "Because we are animals and animals need to eat."
K: "Why?"
D: "Because we need to get rid of bad stuff from our bodies and replace them with good stuff."
K: "Why?"
D: "Because life is a continuous active process of action, and if that process stops, life stops."
K: "Why?"
D: "There is no why, there is either life, with food, and playing at the park, or there is non-life with no food and no playing at the park. If we want to play at the park, we need to eat or else can not play at the park any more because we won't be able to move. So if you want to play at the park tomorrow, you have to make sure your body has food."
@@ExistenceUniversityWhy?
@@MrMandude365 Because pain hurts now stop asking
@ oh okay
Reminds me of the book borrowing analogy. Bob asks June if he can borrow a book. She say's 'sure, but I have to get it from Harry first'. Then when she asks Harry, Harry say's "sure, but I have to get it from Sarah first". And when he asks Sarah, she say's "Sure, but I have to get it from Dave first", etc etc.
If nobody owns the book to begin with, you will never get that book.
I'm not sure what that proves exactly! Maybe, if there are small justifications, then there must be an ultimate justification that needs no justification itself. Otherwise, if there's no book to begin with, then all our little justifications are basically meaningless....perhaps?!
Good one , your comment made me think more than the actual lecture you are commenting about. Very strange
Ive heard of this professor before. Ive spoken with 3 of his students. From what I hear he is a seriously talented instructor.
Based on this video, I wouldn't be surprised if that was true! :)
Great explanation! Thank you.
Regarding 3:45 What about a fifth response to the regress problem: They regress for a while and then end in a loop. Like B-A-C-D-F-H-J-L-J-L-F... What if it's like Benfords mathematical law, where it doesn't matter from which believe or number you start you always end up with the same loop in ultimately. Perhaps a back and forth between a pragmatic, a evolutionary and a more experiential belief. Imagining that this foundational loup is does not consist of believes that we can summon up consciously but rather subconscious ones.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
... Why?
Illogical Immigrant tehehe
Because I said so that's why!
This why predictions from your belief is the only thing that required not reasons or proofs which anyone can make up 4:01
Sounds like epistemic regression is a characteristic of every internet argument.
impalabeeper or fallacious arguments. Lol
Fallacious arguments are precisely where epistemic regress is not important. If two people who have no fallacies in their thinking at all disagree, it must boil down to different foundations of believes. If two irrational people argue, there might be no regress necessary because they probably just disagree due to fallacies they did not notice.
Hans Hintermann Precisely, precisely
@@hanshintermann1551 How can two opposing arguments both be without a fallacy? Im not trying to claim it cant happen. Im just not familiar with an example and would like to hear one.
@@jasonspades5628 Well, let's use social security as an example. Of course people can disagree about how much the government should get involved to provide healthcare, shelter, food etc. for a number of reasons, and a lot of the time the reasons are misinformation or fallacious reasoning. But sometimes it's just because one person values people's financial freedom more, and the other person values social safety more.
This video linked me back to the video that linked me to this one...
does it mean that in coherentism there is already an established truth wherein we only put into the "web" those things that corresponds and or fit with that established truth and reject if it does not?
I HATE what you said, and I hope everyone else agrees with me too
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
I’d flip that pyramid around, there is a foundation that can be reached. But the implications will not stop. There is only a peak at this particular point in time
i had this idea as well
Is it possible to have a mix of these justifications? Foundationalism for some of your beliefs, infinitism for others, and coherentism for others? Or do all beliefs have to follow one system
Usually epistemologists view these 3 models as incompatibles. But some of them tried to accommodate them, as we can see in Susan Haack’s funderentism (fundationalism+coherentism).
It's not a problem, that's a illusion, there is no paradox in infinite cause after cause after cause, it's only a problem for finite minds. But circular causal loop definitely has a problem, because what caused the causal loop, therefore infinite branching of causes is the most solid and valid, and any circular causation are just finite features of infinite causal propagation.
Yes they mix well, math has foundations, pragmatic beliefs that may not be provable but lead to beneficial beliefs are not foundational. But then again we can twist words to mean what we want them to mean so it depends on our given word games.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
What a beautiful summary, thank you! :)
great video and explanation, thank you!
Fallibilism and Popper's critical rationalism should have been described as an approach that rejects justificationism.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
@thatchinaboi USA Popper's solution is a combination of infinitism and coherentism.
Your (2) is false. We do make sense and use of infinite functions despite them never halting. E.g. calculus and pi.
In epistemology it means no more than there is always more to discover. In critical rationalist terms there are always errors/problems to be solved that in turn create better problems.
Amazing explanation!
This method is frequently used in Problem Solving to help get to the root cause.
which program do you use to make these ?
I'm not clear on how infinitism supports belief. How is an infinite chain of reasoning even possible? It would seem inevitable that you would come to some kind of end, such as an empirical or a priori reason, or else you would end up with circular reasoning. After all, beliefs are not numbers, people have to engage in reasoning to come up with a reason.
On the other hand, a hybrid of foundationalism and coherentism probably comes closer to the truth. Some things have simple linear reasoning behind them, while other things rely upon a 'foundation' (bad joke) or web of interrelated beliefs that are complementary or mutually supportive.
According to Wars and genocides it seems that survival and self-gratification are possible justifications for reasons.
@@dlon8899 Sorry, but I don't understand. Survival and self-gratification are good reasons for lying to yourself, i.e. self-justification. But that's more psychology than philosophical epistemology. Related to this video, I'm more interested in the philosophical side. I'm looking for ways to support beliefs that are true, or as close as we can get to knowing that something is true, not in justifying false beliefs.
@@macsnafu Maybe you could say that all reasons in the set of infinite reason are necessary. In that way you could say it is because it is.
@@azap12 Thanks for the reply. Of course you could *say* that, but saying it doesn't make it true. ;-)
I'd love to re-attempt to understand this high
Why, because an altered state provides a superior insight?
@@karmalodro1593 no. Just a different perspective. It allows someone to learn from both frames of mind and thus potentially gain a greater understanding.
Coherentism is right: the world is indeed a complex system. But Fundamentalism is also right since humans can reorganize this reality through thoughts and words into a linear form.
That synthesis is called 'foundherentism' by Susan Haack.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Is there a certain kind of belief where if one denies it, then he contradicts himself? If so, can this belief be a good candidate for a belief that requires no further justification? I was thinking of the statement, "truth exists." If one denies that statement, then he contradicts himself.
The philosophy of Objectivism does this. Reality is something you can be aware of. If you hit a contradiction you know that it must be the way it is because anything else would be a violation of the law of identity and the law of causality (which is just the law of identity applied to actions)
@@ExistenceUniversity Thank you.
I think we have to look at what we can know and what is knowable. It may be that there is some final end. It may be that we will never get there in which case it becomes to sense and purposes the infinite case.
However, for practical purposes we solve this by some method of self referral - you can see this a lot when you delve into science e.g. what is energy. How useful this self referral system is depends on how big a circle it takes in since this expands its predictive quality and power.
Very nicely done!
Knowledge is Asymptotic Infinitism, quantized at consensus realities
What is the argument for the rejection of infinitism?
I think it depends on whether or not epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions. If you could say "what is the reason" a pencil falls down on this earth then you could give an explanation by refering to general laws of nature, x is caused by y which is caused by z. If you apply epistemic regression on what I'd call existentialist choices, you might have a harder time. Like why do you believe in god? There's probably an end to your line of argumentation where you can't describe a deeper level of causation as to why or why not you believe in god. Do we as animals shaped by evolution have that deep of a mind that our drives and decisions can be justified on an infinetely deep level?
Philosophical Overdose 😳 How do you know that a human mind is finite? At which stage of our evolution did such a mind cease to develop? Perhaps your point is better associated with our physical brain, as it is constrained by our 💀?
There are several. One is known as the ac/dc objection. Another has to do with the transmission of justification. Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start
I think the epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions at least back to the big bang. We run out of data at that point. That doesn't mean there isn't any data. It just means we don't have access to whatever data is there if any.
Maybe the question boils down to whether or not infinity exists actually. Mathematics uses infinity but that is potential infinity.
The video stated that neither the skeptics nor the others accepted infinitism.
Our brains are probably finite but our imaginations may not be. Imagination is a product of our minds which is a product of our brains.
W.T. Stace had an interesting solution to this in studying Hegal.
Cleared a lot. Thanks
I think the reason infinitism doesn't work is because we treat it like it doesn't have a real world repercussion. " If you have infinite reasons, then you have infinite time to explain it to me"
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
None of those seemed quite right until you started talking about coherentism. In my experience that's the way it works.
You can go in a straight line for a bit but ultimately reasons for believing different things influence and support one another.
Great video!! :D
Some potential responses to this epistemic problem I've thought of
1) Is it a justified true belief that we need a justified true belief for all of your justified true beliefs?
2) Deny the regress problem. It seems it's true in itself, essentially.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
I love Philosophy, but I feel sometimes it can be useless. If you ask why many times, you reach to the truth. And the truth most of the time is very abstract. It maybe nonsense to ask deep meaning of our behavior as it is always ended up to the abstract idea. But close to that truth we may justify the core reason.
The skeptics are right. Trying to shoe horn all this nonsense is ridiculous.
Beliefs don't have to be justified or true, even if it does have more practical benefits. Seeing as most of our beliefs are inevitably going to be based on shoddy evidence, doesn't it seem like unjustified and untrue beliefs would be a more interesting topic?
the point of epistemology is to arrive at truth and to delineate between untruth and truth aka knowledge. If you don't think knowing things is important, than yeah, this is ridiculous.
Is not the argument you make subject to skepticism?
Just asking why isn't always to justify reason, but more often to find intent.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
Knowledge is seperate from belief. This applies to belief not knowledge. Foundational axipms are required for any philosophy of epistemology. Coherentism must also have foundational axioms. The regress problem ends with the foundational axioms.
Coherentisms "axiom" is the trustworthiness of the belief-system itself, and this can be questioned... and justified in many different ways (depending on witch version of coherentism one subscribes to). So coherentism does not have a foundation that doesn´t requier further justification.
Niklas Wingren well put it. And the same applies to infinitism. I think that the problem here is to understand that foundationalists need to say that foundational beliefs are different “in nature” of other beliefs. They call it basic beliefs to mark that distinction.
🤦
Why is "Why do you trust what you saw on the news?" the right why question to ask? It isn't as simple as "Why?". How do you know when you're justified to add an addendum to "Why?" for a given context?
Defining questions are the spoils of the winning team to enjoy...whenever
nicely done
"it can't go back forever" - thomas aquinas
Is coherentism/infinitism related to structuralism?
Sextus Empiricus is translated as sexist Americus by auto-cc. LOL
Pragmatic emergence justifies an end point to regress. A demarcation of useful and useless causality to a given scenerio
The child asks why, why, why... There is a point where the answers are not serving a use for the initial claim. Although their may be many, maybe even infinite questions and answers that are true and interesting, the justification is use. Similar to Wittgensteins claim that meaning is use.
Jasper O'Reilly for some reason I was not notified of your response. I think you should tag my name next time since I randomly noticed you responded. I guess I'm attaching the concept of strong emergence to epistemic regress.
I think it's accurate for now but in the future it may not be good enough. I see things like strong emergence and the Butterfly Effect, and much of so called randomness as our ignorance of the variables. Some things are just too complex for our ape brains and the computers we've made.
sjg1984 "Because I said, now get in your room!" :)
Human Evolution isn't this reasoning merely begging the question?
It's not a problem, that's a illusion, there is no paradox in infinite cause after cause after cause, it's only a problem for finite minds. But circular causal loop definitely has a problem, because what caused the causal loop, therefore infinite branching of causes is the most solid and valid, and any circular causation are just finite features of infinite causal propagation.
Very useful. Thank you! ;)
although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. Surah 53 verse 28
How does foundherentism differ from these ?
There is no regress problem if you are aware that reality is what it is and they is no such thing as "Reality as it really is" or "Reality as it really isn't". At a certain point you hit a wall that if this was not the case it would contradict the law of identity, and so you can call that exercise done and dusted.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
@@thatchinaboi1 What?
@@ExistenceUniversity What don't you understand? 😂
@@thatchinaboi1 What you are on about? I cannot tell if you think you are helping or debunking, either way it's not working. Like who is "our"
Objectivists claim that three axioms provide the underpinnings of knowledge.
1. Existence exists (there is something)
2. Consciousness perceives existence
3. To exist is to be something (A=A)
Objectivists say that in the very act of trying to deny any of these axioms, the denier would actually end up affirming these axioms.
LLK III and they would be right but that doesn't mean the objectivist claims beyond those are true.
Yeah, but that is hardly an answer to this problem, I would say.
But there's no guarantee that consciousness perceives things that exist correctly. There's no guarantee that our phenomenal experience corresponds to the noumenal world and I don't see an obvious way to link those two with just these axioms.
Axioms are subjective. Axioms are special pleading. I like to be just narrowly open-minded as possible
@@dlon8899 They say these three axioms are conceptually irreducible and any attempt to deny them actually performatively affirms them.
Thank you RUclips Algorithm. This is one of the thing that I'm searching for.
Oh hey, it's my alma mater!
Great video! What about Foundherentism?
susan haack, foundationalism+coherentism
?
it's when you believe everything that you found here 🤔.
The epistemic regress problem does not apply to all statements. I can think of a proposition that doesn't lead to the problem. 🙂
It seems only foundationalism follows a justifiable reasoning of believe.
I've got a 'why' or two for you-
why be concerned with 'justifying' your beliefs?
Thereon, why bother having beliefs at all?
Because beliefs are necessary to consciously act. Pouring water into a glass rest on the belief that the glass can hold water and that water can be poured. People choose do things because they have some belief about effects those actions will have.
You believe in not having beliefs
Glad to be here in the intellectual section of RUclips amongst the brainiacs. Thank you for the knowledge. I just got another wrinkle in my brain.
take a shot every time he says "justification"
Seeing a tree isn't a reason for a foundational belief. I see a tree because I have eyes. If I was blind I wouldn't see the tree.
Examples for each would have helped
Did anybody understand whats wrong with asking why why why? It felt as it got brushed off a bit and didnt really get touched upon, anybody has an answer? Why should I believe, for example, that the real world is real?
Niiice
I think Infinitism was dismissed because it's the most unsatisfying answer.
It's the only one that implies you can never truly know anything.
And that's why it's also the most valid option.
Because any belief has angle that could show it's possibly not true. And if you can't find one, someone else can.
I really love this answer. Thanks man.
All of these are doing different ways of not admitting they don't know. Foundationalism is using special pleading for It's foundation. Infinitism has no reason for saying those reasons when nothing in reality that we know of shows such. And Coherentism will eventually end up with having to admit they don't know or make some excuse.
Language itself contains many unwarranted metaphysical assumptions.
I'm a coherenist
Right?
my man is really out here named sextus empiricus
set speed to 1.25
I did set it to 1.75 😱
"The news tends to be accurate" BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Does this have anything to do with reasoning from first principles?
When the first particle collided with another particle, it's altered course started the chain of events.
A belief that is circular can be pejorative and fallacious. Not saying that is always the case. For example christian theists say jesus or yahweh is god because the bible says it is true, this is a circular arguement that goes nowhere without good evidence or epistemology.
Why didnt you comment on the problem of the criterion? It goes hand in hand with Munchhausen's Trilemma. It even applies to Fallibilism and Rationalism.
1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false.
2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible.
3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs.
4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable.
5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions.
6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous.
P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)
@@thatchinaboi1 I would disagree with the premise "Not all axioms are assumed true." Give me an example of an axiom that is not assumed true. I deny that any proposition can be self-evident. Logic, as well as, mathematics and numbers requires relations and if relations are themselves incoherent as I would argue then not proposition can be self-evident. What do you mean by self-evident? True without requiring proof or reasoning? But the question is how do you know which brings us back the problem of the criterion.
I would also disagree with your false dichotomy charge since foundherentism is a foundationalism in disguise. c.f. Haack's Foundherentism Is a Foundationalism by P. Tramel
Self-evident propositions are assumed true. Otherwise, what do you mean by something is self evident. Ofcourse, this depends on your theory of truth.
Claiming something is 'logically certain to be true and .... logically irrefutable.' Suggests implicitly that for something to be true, it must conform to logic. Therefore, you are using methodism to solve the problem of the criterion because it works with no way to justify what makes such a methodology truth bearing.
The corollary is supposed to show that the conclusion can never be attained, since it is the person who argues against the corollary must be able to prove it is false, not the other way around.
the conclusion does not seek to prove anything. It is simply highlighting that if justification is required for knowledge and all possibilities are flawed then the onus would be on the one who claims justification is possible to justify that statement.
Munchhausen’s Trilemma is NOT self-defeating since it is not a proposition, theory or statement. It is a conjunction of several inconsistent but intuitive propositions. So it cannot be true or false since it is a set of propositions.
To claim the conclusion is a self-refuting proposition, you would be equivocating between justification and truth. Since the conclusion itself cannot be justified then it presents the paradox it was meant to. Since the conclusion itself may lack justification, the onus would be one the person who denies it justification for an alternative since the conclusion logically follows.
"the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth"
The Trilemma's conclusion has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with justification.
What are the 'Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions' that you are referring to?
Does a blind person see a tree? Ya they do so then I guess it would go in a circle then.
Your studies appear to have left out ancient Indian philosophies.
This video pretty refuted presuppositional apologetics.
there is no spoon
we don't need to justify ourselves for anything. Consequences are going to hit and reality is going to catch up.
Sometimes I wish I haven't asked questions. Having knowledge is a burden.
Follow a religion, that'll solve your non-problem.
Wouldn't you rather have the burden of knowledge than the weightlessness of ignorance?
Read book Kohelet. You're not the only one with this problem, buddy.
Just because humans don’t have a real ability to comprehend infinity doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Out of all of them foundationalism is the least persuasive. Foundationalism is only acceptable to theists. I think a hybrid of infinitism and coherantism to be the most accurate. Especially In an infinite universe/multiverse. Although, from our human perspective which is severely limited we must arrive at pure skepticism. We can never say that we know anything to be true or justified with a capital T or capital J. (We can only say things are true or justified with a lowercase t or j). Until we fully understand consciousness we can’t even really have meaningful conclusions.
I thought it goes back to belief due to love or fear of hell
As im watching this especially when describing whether things end or go around. I have narrowed ut down to 3 exampls.
Eeny meeny miney mo (end)
"This is the song that never ends" (infinity)
"John jacob Jingle Heimer. schmitt" (around in a circle). Lol you're welcome.