lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide Lesson 10
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
Lesson Overview
STUDY GUIDE: LESSON 10
Do We Need Justification?
From our previous lessons we arrived at a basic understanding of what philosophers mean by
“knowledge” and why they call for “justification” of beliefs. In this lesson we go further and ask,
how does the structure of the mind relate to what should count as justification? And we ask, does
one have an obligation to make sure that he/she has good reasons for holding whatever beliefs
he/she holds? Some say that if you believe something is true and can’t give a reason for
believing it then you cannot reasonably claim to know that belief is true. This view is called
internalism and it has a long and honored history in epistemology. In recent years, this view has
been challenged by externalists who claim that there are at least some beliefs that we are
reasonable to hold even though we don’t, and probably can’t, give a reason for holding them.
Tasks
View and take notes on the presentation, “An Overview of Issues in Contemporary Justification,
Part 1.” Be able to answer these questions:
2 issues: Noetic Structure/Epistemic Obligations (good reason for beliefs)
•What is a noetic structure, in brief?
-The structure of one’s system of beliefs.
(how are our beliefs related together? How do they support each other?)
Foundationalism vs coherentism
•What beliefs are included in one’s noetic structure?
1. Sum total of everything that person believes (true and false)
-Beliefs not currently thinking about
-Vary in significance
-Person centered (what is important to me might not be to you)
2. Recognizes the differing degree of certainty or firmness and conviction of a belief
- Some beliefs more strong than others
3. How the beliefs are related together
-Epistemic chain (chain reaction)
Noetic Structure is characterized by how beliefs are related together.
•What does that have to do with a continuum of beliefs?
-Not all beliefs are the same level
•What are the two main theories of how beliefs relate within ones noetic structure?
-Foundationalism- all beliefs fall into 2 categories (basic, non basic)
(pyramid)
Page 1 of 6
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
-Most foundational beliefs are properly basic beliefs – beliefs needing no
justification (self justifying; first principles)
•How does foundationalism describe the relations of beliefs within a noetic structure?
1. Basing relation (relationship between basic beliefs and above beliefs) .
2. What is the criteria for a properly basic belief?
•Exactly how do strong and moderate foundationalism
differ? Strong/Classical Foundationalism
1. Self- Evidential (whole is greater than the parts) immediately true, nothing needed
to justify it
2. Incorrigible (I feel pain) Impossible to believe it and be mistaken about it.
3. Evident to the Senses (I see green)
Basing relation between non basic and basic beliefs is deductive. The truth of the basic beliefs
guarantee the truth of the non basic beliefs.
VS
Moderate/Weak
1. Self Evidential
2. Indefeasible (in the absence of defeaters) justified in this belief in the absence of
having anything against it
3. Prima Facie Justification (self- presenting at face value)
The basing relationship between non-basic and basic beliefs is not as strict: Induction, abduction
(best explanation), concurrence (a bunch of evidence all together leads to a belief)
-The 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)
•Know the criticisms of strong foundationalism.
1. Crieria are sufficient, but are they necessary? (can we have a belief that does not fit
into three ^)
2. Criteria are self defeating (biggest criticism) the three categories don’t meet their
own criteria
3. Fails to halk the infinite regress problem (pg 89)
4. Problem with basing Relation (too strict)
Coherentism:
-All beliefs fall into one category
-No beliefs are more foundational than any others
-Doxastic assumption- what justifies a belief is that coheres with other beliefs
-While there are no basic beliefs, some beliee that there are beliefs that are more central
(not more foundational, but more connected with other beliefs) not basic belief but
more central
Page 2 of 6
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
•What is the moderate foundationalist view of the basing relation, in terms of “access?”
•What is coherentism’s view of the basing relation, in terms of the
doxastic assumption?
-Doxastic assumption- what justifies a belief is that coheres with other beliefs
•Know the criticisms of coherentism.
-Problem of circularity
-Isolation problem (isolates beliefs from the external world) Columbus cohered
with system, but didn’t match reality
-How does the system start? How do we justify the first belief?
-Plurality Problem It is possible to have to coherent systems that are
logically incompatible?
View and take notes on the presentation, “An Overview of Issues in Contemporary Justification,
Part 2.” This presentation concentrates on the other question under the topic of justification:
epistemic obligations. Be able to answer these questions:
•What is the motivation that drives internalism?
We have an epistemc obligation to form beliefs responsibly and this obligation can only be filled
if we justify our beliefs
-High accessibility requirement- not only should we have good reasons to hold a
particular belief, but we should know what those reasons are
-We should know not only that we know, but we should know why we know
Evidentialism- most common form of internalism
WK Clifford (Radical evidentialism)
•What is the motivation behind externalism? (most common is reliablism)
Definition: As long as my processes are working properly, then I am justified in holding
the belief that I hold (does everyone have a brain even though I haven’t seen it)
Problems with reliablism
-Problem of generality
-Accidental true beliefs
-Discounts the normative role that responsibility plays in acquiring true beliefs
(ignores epistemic obligation)
Motivation: this accords with basic institutions concerning most of our beliefs
-Most people do not always know why they believe as they do but they still believe that
they are rational in believing as they do.
•How does externalism answer the question of quality control?
When cognitive faculties are working reliably we have justification
Page 3 of 6
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
Justification is simply the result of my belief being in the right relation to the world whether I am
aware of it or not (vision, logic, memory) pg 133
•How does this presentation suggest bringing internalism and externalism together?
1. There are some beliefs that we are warranted in holding which we do not seem to be
able to justify (memories and senses)
2. We have an epistemic duty to withhold affirmind some beliefs without
sufficient evidence…. Cure for cancer, life on mars
Both inernalism and externalism are necessary
Externalism can incorporate internalism, but not vice
versa
Read and take notes of Chapter 7 of How Do We Know? “Do We Need Justification?” This
reading overlaps with material introduced in the presentations, but with some further details.
Make sure you understand the following points and questions:
•Explain what it means for a belief to be justified.
-justification refers to a person having reasons or evidence for his beliefs.
-has to do with being rational about our beliefs
•Explain the distinction between a belief being justified and a belief being true.
-One can have all kinds of justification for a particular belief, yet the belief still may be
false or misguided
-justification does not address whether or not a belief is true. Rather, it merely counts
the belief as being rational and justified when it is supported by evidence and good
reason.
•What is internal about internalism? Why is it called that?
-This view is called internalism because it claims that people have internal mental
access to the evidence or arguments that support their beliefs, even though they might
not be currently aware of this evidence
•According to internalism, if a person does not have good reason for what
he/she believes, does that mean the belief is not true?
-people are not justified in their beliefs unless they have cognitive access to the
reasons that support their beliefs
•Does internalism claim one must be consciously aware of one’s reasons in order
to be justified for a belief?
-yes
•Explain Clifford’s brand of Evidentialism.
-if a belief cannot be supported by evidence, the belief must be rejected
-It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence
•What is the problem with Clifford’s version of Evidentialism?
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
Page 4 of 6
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
-Clifford’s standard is too high. It has been pointed out that his statement that it is
“always wrong to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence” is self-defeating, as
it does not have sufficient evidence to justify it.
•What is the problem with the statement “It is wrong always, everywhere and
for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence?”
-You will notice in this quote that Clifford uses the word wrong to describe what
happens when a person believes on the basis of insufficient evidence. As he makes clear
immediately, he thinks it is wrong in a moral sense to have these kinds of beliefs. PAGE
81
•Why has internalism been so dominant?
-internalism forces us to evaluate our beliefs and be reasonable about what we
affirm. Because none of us want to believe things that are untrue, it is
understandable that internalism would be popular among philosophers
•What is external about externalism? Why is it called that?
-externalists claim that many of our beliefs cannot be justified according to
internalism’s standards. The reasons and evidence may very well lie outside of the
believer’s mind or be external to
the believer’s cognitive grasp.
-Externalists, by contrast, think that we do not have to access the reasons and
evidence that support many of our beliefs to be counted as rational.
•Explain why it is difficult to justify the reliability of our memories.
-The externalist would challenge the internalist to come up with some means for testing
to see if our memories are reliable. Externalism would say that I am not obligated to
justify that my memories are reliable.
-Unless an internalist could come up with a defeater, my memory works fine
•How does an externalist handle the question of the reliability of our memories?
-The externalist would challenge the internalist to come up with some means for testing
to see if our memories are reliable. Externalism would say that I am not obligated to
justify that my memories are reliable. Just because I do not have justification in the form
of evidence or reasons does not mean that I am irrational in holding that my memories
are reliable, and in the absence of defeaters I am rational in holding to my memories as
reliable. Pg 83
-Externalists, by contrast, think that we do not have to access the reasons and
evidence that support many of our beliefs to be counted as rational.
•According to reliabilism, do I need to know that my cognitive processes
are functioning reliably to be warranted in holding a belief?
????
•What is the major criticism internalism raises against externalism?
Page 5 of 6
Reformed Epistemology
Sensus Divinitas
High Accessibility Requirements
Abduction
Concurrence
Warrant
Rapprochement
Justification
Internalism
Epistemic Deontology
Evidentialism
Externalism
Defeater
Reliabilism
Cognitive Process
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201
-Internalists have a number of criticisms of externalism, the most prominent being the
lack of any sense of responsibility toward one’s epistemic duties. Internalists have a
strong sense that we have an obligation to make sure that we have good reasons to hold
the beliefs we do. They believe that externalism tends to shirk this duty pg 82
•What is the major criticism externalism raises against internalism?
-Externalists’ main criticism of internalism is that we do not normally form our beliefs by
going through some sort of extended process of internally reflecting on reasons and
evidence. They would say most of our beliefs are formed in us rather than our
intentionally forming them. As we have seen, they would also argue many of our beliefs
cannot be justified in the traditional sense of the word. After all, they might say, how do
I prove my senses are giving me reliable information about the outside world?
•What is Plantinga’s modest foundationalists/externalist warrant for believing
in God?
-Plantinga develops a view known as Reformed epistemology. From an externalist
perspective, Plantinga suggests that it is reasonable for persons to believe in God
without having evidences and arguments to justify their belief.
•Compare the internalist and externalist justification for belief in God.
-According to internalism, Shelley is unjustified in this belief because she cannot provide
reasons and evidence for it
-Externalists and reformed epistemologists do not believe that Shelley is required to
offer reasons and evidence in support of (D) before she is rational in believing it
•Explain the balanced approach to resolving the conflict between externalism
and internalism suggested in this reading.
Terms
Make sure you fully understand the following terms and concepts:
Page 6 of 6
