The Pros And Cons Of The Preservation Theory

I disagree with the idea that the Dualistic Theory entirely avoids the problems posed by the five-minute hypothesis. Huemer asserts that his theory dodges the objection because it explains why both A and B are still rational where the Preservation theory fails in doing so. The Preservation Theory claims that while rational A’s justification is preserved because he experienced the original justifying experiences, B is irrational for the lack of original experiences despite the fact that he retains the same exact memories. But the Dualistic Theory still needs to answer how one can be justified in believing their own memories. The five-minute hypothesis entails that both A and B should be doubtful of the accuracy (or even the entire content) of their memories—Perhaps A is in the same state as B but his memories are replicated from a person, Z—. Suppose we say that both A and B share the belief that they bought a new bike last week. Both people have seeming memories of this transaction so according to Huemer’s claim, they both …show more content…
Furthermore B would not be justified in his belief of P as he/she would have justification for retaining the apparent memories but would not be justified in his/her acquisition of the memory. I would respond by asserting that if we were to blindly question A and B, there would be no way in telling whose memory acquisition is genuine or not. The fact that they have the same memories makes it so that their thought process and knowledge in general is exactly the same. Using Russell’s hypothesis, it is clear that Huemer’s theory fails, as it does not offer the full answer for how we can be justified in our