The Infinite Regress Argument boils down to the support of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn which goes on to infinity. Why is this important? Well...the evidentialist theory of knowledge takes the position of the possession of evidence as the mark of a justified belief according to Feldman's Epistemology. An example in favor of Evidentialism would be to believe you are is going to win the Iditarod even though veteranarians have told you that your dogs are sick and near death and various sled experts have told you your sled is falling apart. There is no evidence to support your winning the Iditarod, but you enter anyway and all the dogs die, the sled falls apart and you are left to die in the frozen tundra of Alaska.
Clearly, sometimes evidence is important for a belief, especially if there is evidence to the contrary. Yet sometimes a belief is based on reasons which have no justification themselves. The infinite regress argument makes it clear that there are only justified basic beliefs, or beliefs that are not justified on the basis of any other beliefs. Furthermore, if a belief is not a justified basic belief than it is not justified as it will inevitably have an evidential chain that is circular, ends with and unjustified belief, or goes on for infinity (and no one can have an infinite series of beliefs). To accept this idea calls into question nearly everything we claim to know. Knowing something as simple as "That sock is red" requires justification from a chain of beliefs. This will ultimately lead into Descartes and his "I think therefore I am", one of the only, if not the only, basic justified beliefs.
I hope all your examples don't involve wanton disregard for animal health... ;-)
ReplyDelete[Familiarity in Evidentialism]
OK, I like the discussion of infinite regress, but it's a bit confusing. The way it's written, it seems like there's a) basic beliefs that need no justification, or b) beliefs that cannot be justified. That's not quite how it goes... because the "basic belief solution" is to say that those problematic unjustified beliefs can actually be justified, eventually - by basic beliefs.
So, you're right: to justify the "socks" belief, I need justification, which (say Foundationalists) will lead to a basic belief. But that fixes the problem posed by the infinite regress argument... right?
(Almost there... just need to see you post a comment on this, to show me you "get" that basic beliefs solve the IR argument.)
[Also: tell me a bit why basic beliefs don't need justification, and get Familiarity in BBs, too.]
[Also: If you can blog about Foundationalism, that can simultaneously deliver Familiarity in Foundationalism, and also help with Competence in Infinite Regress.]