Exam 3 lesson 3

o  Basic/immediate beliefs

o  Mediate/non basic beliefs

o  Basing relation

o  The three conditions for a basic belief

§  Self-evidently true

§  Incorrigible

§  Evident to the senses

o  The means by which basic beliefs support non-basic beliefs

o  Only beliefs that can be deduced from our basic beliefs should be accepted.

·        In order to know, one must know that one knows and be able to show that one knows

·        Individualism and pure reason void of external influence

·        A priori account of the foundations of human knowledge fir for all people at all times in all placed

o  Why only these conditions for a basic belief?

o  The criteria statement itself is not basic.

o  Claims that foundationalism solves the regress argument fail (the arbitrariness of stopping points)

o  Other means of supporting beliefs than just deduction/induction (best explanation, retroduction, concurrence, etc)

o  The security vs. content problem

o  Other problems (excessive individualism, access requirements, noetic effects of sin)

Criteria for a Properly Basic Belief

Self-Evidential

Indefeasible (in the absence of defeaters)

Prima Facie Justified (self-presenting at face value)

The basing relationship between non-basic and basic beliefs is not as strict: induction, abduction, concurrence

Basic beliefs make non-basic beliefs probable but not certain.

Some moderate foundationalists do not believe one needs to access basic beliefs or be aware of structural relationship to be justified (externalism).

one’s foundational beliefs are not necessarily immune to any conceiveabledoubt-they can be overridden- bu they are perfectly acceptable unless on has good reason for thinking that have been undermined. “innocent unless prove guilty”

§  The thought of which I am conscience are thoughts of a being I call myself

§  Those things really happened which I distinctly remember.

§  Those things really do exist which we distinctively perceive by our senses, and are what we perceive them to be.

§  What is to be, will probably be like what has been in similar circumstances.

§  First we cannot offer guarantees of the reliability of “first principles” For our evidence concerning reliability would have to include deliverances of the faculties whose reliability we are accumulating evidence for.

o  There are thinkers who reject beliefs I think reid would endorse as legitimate first principles

o  There are thinkers who accept as akin to first principles beliefs Reid would not endorse as such

The structure of one’s system of beliefs

All beliefs fall into two categories: basic and non-basic

Some beliefs are more foundational then other beliefs.

The most foundational beliefs are properly basic beliefs

Properly basic beliefs are first principles needing no justification; they are self-justifying; first principles

- the connection between our epistemological starting points, our basic beliefs, and all that is based on tof our basic beliefs is to be transferred to our non-basic beliefs,hem; specifies how the epistemic merit 

the position that has come to be termes “strong foundationalism” or “classical foundationism” attempts to meet the uncertainty generated by liability to error and disagreement in the strongest possible terms: by grounding our entire edifice of knowledge on invincible certainty.

(i.e. “the whole is greater than the parts”)

I feel pain

in the absence of defeaters

All beliefs fall into one category,No beliefs are more foundational then any others.

Self-Evidential, indefeasible, Prima facie Justified- bottom of the triangle

I have introspective access to the reasons for my beliefs to which I can and must appeal as justification for my beliefs Definition: Justification requires that one be able to have internal access (through reflection) to one’s reasons that support one’s beliefs.

Most common form of internalism

Allows for abduction and concurrence

Beliefs don’t need to be grounded in other beliefs

Indefeasability;

A belief is warranted or has positive epistemic status if it is formed by properly functioning cognitive processes even if I am not aware of such processes

is a condition that occurs when one’s cognitive faculties are working reliably.

Justification is simply the result of my belief being in right relation to the world whether I am aware of it or not.

As you work through your reasons for belief you come to the point where there is no more basic, no more fundamental claims on which the general reliability of your conscious mind might be based.the buck stops here.

an object exists due to fact its existence best explains the data with which we are confronted; its reducable to neither induction nor deduction.

evidence strengthen in the way they are interlocked together; a strength when combined exceeds what they have in isolation

- one’s foundational beliefs are not necessarily immune to any conceiveabledoubt-they can be overridden- bu they are perfectly acceptable unless on has good reason for thinking that have been undermined. “innocent unless prove guilty

A first principle is one that cannot be deduced from any other.

truth based on another first principle

—Coherence is a necessary condition for truth but is not a sufficient condition for truth. ¢Consistency is not adequate to determine truth —How does one judge the truthfulness of the systems? ¢Incarnation fits in with Christianity but not with Buddhism —How does one start a system going? ¢How do I determine the truth value of the first proposition? —This theory is not linked at all with the real world, only systems of beliefs