The Infinite Regress Argument Analysis

Improved Essays
Charlotte Kang
PHIL 110 Paper 1
Option 2: Foundationalist response to infinite regress argument for scepticism
Sceptical arguments are designed to show that we lack any knowledge whatsoever. Such arguments have informed views about what knowledge is and whether we have any in the first place, by establishing the conditions that any acceptable knowledge claim must meet. This essay addresses the idea of radical, or global scepticism: that every statement is doubtful, and that information and theories are never certain or justified. Thus, claims for truth and knowledge about the real world depends on the defeat of scepticism. This essay discusses a particular argument for global scepticism – the infinite regress argument. In defence of human’s
…show more content…
It implies that most of our beliefs are false, which allows for the generalisation that none of our beliefs are good enough to count as knowledge. One example of a sceptical argument is the infinite regress argument. This argument starts with the premise that whenever we claim to know or justifiably believe something, we imply that we are in possession of good supporting or justifying reasons for our claim. For any claim to knowledge, it may legitimately be asked: How do you know? One of the most natural way to justify a belief is by producing a justificatory argument: belief A is justified by citing some other belief B, from which A is inferable. This question can then be iterated – the answer to the original question will be subject to the further question: how do you know that. Thus, any explanation or chain of justifying reasons either stops, or does not. If our explanations do not come to an end, they carry on forever, either in the form of an infinite regress, or in that of a circle. Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially.
A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure
…show more content…
Specifically, it attempts an account of explanations that end with “non-inferentially justified belief”, by showing the existence of beliefs with a certain property that makes it appropriately basic and indefeasible. This strategy consists of relating claims to know to a foundation, which is asserted to be true, which can be correctly applied to yield knowledge. In this manner, foundationalism aims to provide an alternative to the regression problem – that the chain of reasons can come to rest on something which is immediately self-evident and is thus capable of stopping the regress. Claims to know are typically justified by virtue of such a first principle, or set of principles, known to be true, from which the remainder of the theory strictly follows. Since foundationalism provides reasoning on the basis of one or more indefeasible principles, which are regarded as necessary and necessarily true, knowledge derived from such principles should be beyond doubt of any kind, defeating even the most radical forms of scepticism.
A strong example of a foundationalist claim would be Descarte’s claim to have knowledge of his own existence. According to Descartes, since the cogito, or self-consciousness, cannot be doubted without being affirmed, it hence cannot be false, so it must, therefore, be true. This is because it is impossible for one to imagine themselves as not existing: even if one rejects all his views, he is left

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In this paper I will explain and evaluate two popular arguments regarding the existence of God, A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God by Robin Collins and The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God by William Rowe; then I will discuss how the conclusions are not compatible with one another due to the conflicting structure of the conclusions as well as how one cannot accept both conclusions without compromising one of the arguments. First I will explain the basis of Collins’ argument, which is one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of theism. In A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, Collins centers around the observation of how finely tuned the physical constants of the universe are to the ability for any form of life to exist, if any of them were to change even the smallest bit then no life would possibly be able to develop not to…

    • 1636 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In William James', “The Will to Believe, James provides a defensive response to religious faith regarding W. T. Clifford's position in his essay, "The Ethics of Belief" (James, 2001). Within his stance, James suggests that his views have a somewhat broader scope that Clifford’s (Princeton University, n.d.). Moreover, that in certain cases, it is not only permissible but inevitable that a person’s passional, non-rational nature will determine that person’s belief (Princeton University, n.d.). In summary, James presents that anything that is proposed for our belief is a hypothesis and that any question about which of the two hypotheses to accept is a person’s option (Princeton University, n.d.).…

    • 1184 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Justifying belief and what is knowledge’s nature and scope is well defined by the philosophical stance of “naturalized epistemology” in that knowledge comes from the empirical sciences though it’s application of theory, methods and results. Knowledge comes from proving things. This is different from the classical foundationalism which asserts the need to basic belief from which other beliefs can be built on. This essay will discuss the distinctiveness of naturalized epistemology, then how it differs from classical foundationalism and conclude with why it is referable. It should be noted that both systems of knowledge have many variations and so this short essay is more a general discussion.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The argument from ignorance presents difficulties that simply place into question one’s confidence when answering a vague question. Wolgast and Stroud demonstrate the improper context and meaning of the argument, in which we are forced to provide an answer. However, if the answer provided has any correlation with our knowledge obtained through the senses, then it is not a satisfiable answer. Similar to the example that Stroud’s example, if one attempts to provide an answer by using a method (e.g. a test tube)—assuming that knowledge is a necessary condition—then such proof would…

    • 934 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Cosmological Argument

    • 2037 Words
    • 9 Pages

    In the middle of the 17th century, thinkers in the enlightenment began to question how belief in the existence of a monotheistic God could be rationally supported. A number of arguments for and against the existence of God emerged at this time, and while the philosophical debate on the existence of God is still in session, the initial dust has settled. At this point in time, it is abundantly clear that a the cosmological argument is untenable at both a metaphysical and empirical level, and that the various versions of the cosmological argument fail to support the existence of God. There is good reason for critically examining the cosmological argument. Theists have made a claim that God exists.…

    • 2037 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To be an expert witness is a tough job expert, witnesses are always at all times expected to act professionally and also ethically guided by their field of expertise. The expert witness is always in scrutiny when taking up a stand in court. They are going to face a backlash from the legal team in the opposing side.so the expert should be careful in what they say or do in court One of the many pitfalls that an expert witness will face is its legitimacy to stand as an expert witness. An expert witness will be closely examined by the judge.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hume & Induction On a daily basis, all mankind habitually utilizes a certain principle to obtain answers in their lives. This principle entails reasoning through a collection of several observations. David Hume labels this process as the principle of induction. Although it is used by everyone in the world, Hume questions the validity of it. One can equate Hume’s questioning to a popular saying, if everyone jumped off a cliff would you jump with them?…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    First Cause Argument

    • 1578 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Does the First Cause Argument successfully show that God exists? Introduction: The First Cause Argument is a valid argument in my opinion, and in this essay I will attempt to show the reader that the argument is in fact valid, as well as showing that the premises are true, which leads to the First Cause Argument being sound. By doing this I hope to convince the reader to accept that the First Cause Argument successfully shows that God exists.…

    • 1578 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    (ref) Justified true belief is necessary for knowledge (you cannot have knowledge without it), but it is also sufficient for knowledge (you do not need anything…

    • 1426 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout history, philosophers have been known to use skepticism as a method to justify their theories of existence and knowledge. Such philosophers like Descartes who wrote in his meditations that by doubting everything one is able to establish a foundation based upon certainty. However, others philosophers like G.E Moore and Barry Stroud reject Descartes and continue on to explain their foundations and ideas on the connection between knowledge and existence. Certainty and The Problem of the External World are both works that focus on the notion of how knowledge does not need to be justified through skepticism in order to be proven certain.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is vital to distinguish inferential from non-inferential to understand classic foundationalism. Fumerton states that something is inferentially justified if “let us say that P is inferentially justified if its justification is constituted by the having of at least one belief other than P. A belief is noninferentially justified if its justification does not consist in the having of any other belief” (pg. 56) The foundationalist claims that every justified belief is grounded in some belief that is noninferentially justified, which both paradigm externalists and internalists hold. However, both the externalist and externalist hold different views of what is noninferential. In retrospect, an issue arises in relation to inferentially justification.…

    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 679 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Under this view, science exists as a system through which we can logically falsify theories. This stands as the central role of science. In this Essay, I will describe Popper’s Falsificationism and its relation to induction. I will then contrast falsificationism with confirmationism.…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Coherentism

    • 1453 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Is coherentism about justification plausible? When it comes to the acquisition of a true belief leading to knowledge, it is thought that these beliefs should be justified. Coherentism is a form of internal, non-linear justification which holds the idea that for a belief to be justified in any way it must cohere with a current system of beliefs. BonJour wrote that 'what justifies beliefs is the way they fit together' , in essence, for beliefs to be justified they must metaphorically form a lattice like structure, where they each support each other, creating a non-linear structure of justification. Coherentism is mostly considered as an internal form of justification as this process of reflection on our current beliefs to accommodate new ones is an internal, mental process, as opposed to those external theories of justification such as foundationalism which rely on empirical and perceptual data forming core beliefs together being the source of justification.…

    • 1453 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Plato's View Of Relativism

    • 1680 Words
    • 7 Pages

    It should be noted that while clarifying relativism for the purpose of this paper’s arguments these principles remain open to the possibility for revision if need be. Like other forms of relativism, the first principle of moderate epistemic relativism rejects the idea of epistemic fixity and universality arguing that there is more than one knowledge system, and that all knowledge systems are situated in a specific contexts (the principle of the many). Second, as a ‘conceptual space’ between the limits of cognition and what cannot be cognized, moderate epistemic relativism argues that no knowledge system is complete, meaning that in theory there can be no such thing as epistemological hegemony (the principle of incompleteness). Since no knowledge system is able to perceive what is not conceptualized, other standards and systems can never be completely…

    • 1680 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays