Epistemic regress

Definition

Epistemic regress refers to the problem of how to justify beliefs or knowledge claims in a way that avoids an infinite chain of justifications. This issue is critical in understanding foundationalism, where basic beliefs are seen as self-justifying and do not require further support, contrasting with coherentism, which suggests that beliefs are justified based on their relationship with other beliefs. The struggle between these views highlights the importance of finding a stopping point in our quest for knowledge.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The problem of epistemic regress arises when attempting to justify a belief, leading to either an infinite chain of justifications or the need for foundational beliefs.
2. Foundationalism offers a solution by proposing that some beliefs are self-evident or axiomatically true, thus halting the regress.
3. In contrast, coherentism rejects the idea of foundational beliefs and instead argues that justification comes from the mutual support of interconnected beliefs.
4. Epistemic regress challenges both foundationalists and coherentists to account for how knowledge claims can be justified without falling into circular reasoning or endless justification.
5. Understanding epistemic regress is essential for evaluating different theories of knowledge and their implications for our understanding of belief justification.

Review Questions

• How does foundationalism attempt to address the problem of epistemic regress?
  • Foundationalism addresses epistemic regress by positing that there are basic beliefs which do not require further justification. These basic beliefs serve as a firm foundation upon which other beliefs can be built, allowing us to stop the infinite chain of justifications. This approach provides a clear starting point for knowledge claims, helping to simplify our understanding of how we can justify what we believe.
• What are some criticisms of coherentism in relation to epistemic regress?
  • Critics argue that coherentism struggles with epistemic regress because it lacks a clear foundation for beliefs. Since coherentism relies on the interconnectivity and mutual support among beliefs, it risks becoming circular if those connections do not provide an ultimate justification. This reliance on coherence may lead to situations where a belief is justified only within its network, but lacks independent support, raising concerns about the robustness of such justifications.
• Evaluate the implications of epistemic regress for our understanding of knowledge in contemporary philosophy.
  • The implications of epistemic regress significantly shape contemporary discussions in philosophy about knowledge and belief justification. It forces philosophers to examine how we can arrive at justified true beliefs without falling into infinite chains of reasoning or circularity. This evaluation leads to rich debates about foundationalism versus coherentism, influencing various fields such as epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of science, ultimately shaping our understanding of what it means to know something in an increasingly complex world.

Related terms

Foundationalism: A theory of knowledge that posits certain basic beliefs serve as the foundation for all other beliefs, providing a stopping point for justification.

Coherentism: The view that beliefs are justified by their coherence with other beliefs rather than resting on basic foundational beliefs.

Basic beliefs: Beliefs that are accepted without needing further justification; they form the foundation upon which other beliefs can be built.