One of the most debated areas in philosophy is how what we deem to be true, knowledge, is acquired. How can one be certain that they truly know something? Can actual knowledge and enlightenment ever be reached? Skeptics would argue that in order to obtain true knowledge, one must have justifications for every proposition that we have – this process could theoretically go on forever.
The epistemic regress argument states that any and all propositions in an argument must be justified. It was first presented by Aristotle and has been debated in various forms since. The idea is that one has knowledge that comes in an epistemic chain. The epistemic regress argument states that:
I am justified in believing P if only if I have evidence that E justifies …show more content…
To be justified in believing p on the basis of E, I must be justified in believing E. So E is justified only if there is evidence E1 that justifies e. E1 is justified only if there is evidence E2 that justifies E1. E2 is only is justified if there is evidence E3 that justifies E2 ad infinitum…Therefore, I am never justified in believing any proposition (Sept. 14 PowerPoint).
According to Aristotle’s argument, knowledge can never be gained without justifying our beliefs and evidences for our beliefs.
The problem of the certainty of knowledge arises when we have weak justifications for the reasons themselves. If the reasons of a concept are knowledge, we must be able to justify the reasons with reasons ad infinitum. This is the main argument that skeptics use. If one reason can't be justified, than the whole argument cannot be justified. Therefore, it cannot be knowledge. By
The epistemic regress argument states that any and all propositions in an argument must be justified. It was first presented by Aristotle and has been debated in various forms since. The idea is that one has knowledge that comes in an epistemic chain. The epistemic regress argument states that:
I am justified in believing P if only if I have evidence that E justifies …show more content…
To be justified in believing p on the basis of E, I must be justified in believing E. So E is justified only if there is evidence E1 that justifies e. E1 is justified only if there is evidence E2 that justifies E1. E2 is only is justified if there is evidence E3 that justifies E2 ad infinitum…Therefore, I am never justified in believing any proposition (Sept. 14 PowerPoint).
According to Aristotle’s argument, knowledge can never be gained without justifying our beliefs and evidences for our beliefs.
The problem of the certainty of knowledge arises when we have weak justifications for the reasons themselves. If the reasons of a concept are knowledge, we must be able to justify the reasons with reasons ad infinitum. This is the main argument that skeptics use. If one reason can't be justified, than the whole argument cannot be justified. Therefore, it cannot be knowledge. By