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

    They show that justification, truth, and belief conditions are insufficient for knowledge, and that JTB is an incorrect analysis. This leads to the question: how is knowledge defined? The challenge of the Gettier problem is to modify or replace JTB according so that there is a ‘Gettier-proof’ definition of knowledge. I will now argue for the view that Alvin Goldman’s causal theory best solves the Gettier problem. Goldman’s causal theory proposes that the failing within Gettier cases is one of causality, in which the justified true belief is caused too oddly or abnormally to be knowledge.…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    If induction cannot take reliability as a definition because a method cannot be defined as reliable by definition, deduction must not be seen as reliable by definition as well, because deduction should also be treated as a methodology and same as induction. What is the difference between deduction and induction that makes deduction automatically true and we need to prove the reliability of induction to use it? Ideally, we also need to prove the legitimacy of the deduction before using it as a reliable way. We normally don’t do that. Someone may say that deduction is true by logic.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If theory-laden perception is true, then one is justified to any wacky, heterodox, and wrong belief just in case one started with that wacky mistaken belief. Such a result is utterly undesirable, both with non-moral beliefs and moral beliefs. It’s not that I desire justification to be factive, that is for truth to be necessary for justification. I agree with the conventional wisdom in the literature that justification is non-factive, that justification is fallible. Rather, my point is that whatever process someone proposes as the process of justification should attempt or try to track truth.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One cannot appeal to external sources to determine fact from fiction, and they must have some knowledge of what they believe before they can justify their belief. In dealing with propositions, a direct belief that “is a necessary proposition such that one cannot understand it without thereby knowing that it is true” (p. 73) is known as either “a priori” or an axiom. The two, however, have different conditions for them to be considered as true. For a proposition to be axiomatic it must “i. [be] necessarily true and ii.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    She later offers a critique of her definition being too weak because it does not guarantee the repetition of the virtuous act by a non-virtuous agent. It could also be too weak because it lacks sufficient requirements for the motivational aspect of the agent. There are situations where the definition could be too strong, given the agents motivation could be based on something other than the virtue. Zagzebski’s response is that the motivation does not affect the truth. These differences are based upon the…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Coherentism In Philosophy

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The belief can be justified if it is connected with a relevant justified system of beliefs where the beliefs are able to interlock and capable of interactive relationship which stands to supporting each other. Sometimes coherentism gives the impression of leading the regress into a circle. Some coherentists response to the circularity regress problem by claiming as long as the circles are large and complicated enough, it should not be considered as a problem at all. This response, however, did not gain much support because such reasoning only reinforces the lack of legitimate force for justifying beliefs in the chains of justification. Most importantly, a large and complicated circle after all, is still a circle.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    SR maintains however, that mental states are purely intentional and not qualitative, which reinforces its compatibilism with materialism. The obvious objection against this argument is that it commits the fallacy of question begging. That is, it assumes materialism to already be true. To be fair, it is too strong of a claim to say that this argument proves SR. Rather, it merely shows the incentives to accept SR for those who are already proponents of physicalism. When evaluated purely as an argument for the validity of SR however, it fails to deliver.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Essential to this method is the requirement that one should "set aside as false" what might be doubted. On the traditional conception, then, we are following the dictates of reason only when we come to believe something because we have certain and indubitable reasons to think it as true” . If reason is the source of a belief, the Person will satisfy two criteria in arriving at it: he will infer only from premises which he knows to be true, and his reasoning will proceed in accordance with the accepted rules of good inference. On the interpretation of Hume's argument, one of the conceptions of reason with which Hume is concerned is this Cartesian view ;if reason were like this then it would not determine our beliefs about the unobserved or the continued and distinct existence of objects. He says that if reason or the understanding, which he often equates with this conception of reason, did determine the belief, then it would have to proceed upon a principle which is well-founded, a just conclusion; the transition would have to be a just inference and the conclusion built on solid reasoning.…

    • 2418 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays