Regress Problem

Definition

The regress problem is a challenge in epistemology that questions how beliefs can be justified. It addresses the concern that for any belief to be justified, it must be supported by another belief, which in turn requires further justification, leading to an infinite chain of justifications or a circular reasoning scenario. This creates a dilemma for theories of knowledge, as it raises issues regarding how we can arrive at justified beliefs without getting stuck in an endless regress or falling into circularity.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The regress problem raises critical questions about how we can justify our beliefs and what it means for a belief to be rationally supported.
2. Both coherentism and foundationalism offer solutions to the regress problem, with coherentism emphasizing a web of beliefs and foundationalism suggesting that some beliefs do not require further justification.
3. Infinitism presents a more radical approach by allowing for an infinite series of justifications without requiring a stopping point or foundational beliefs.
4. The regress problem highlights the difference between internalist and externalist approaches to justification, where internalists focus on the individual's perspective and externalists consider outside factors.
5. Philosophers like Peter Klein and Bertrand Russell have contributed significantly to discussions surrounding the regress problem and its implications for epistemology.

Review Questions

• How does the regress problem challenge traditional views of justification in epistemology?
  • The regress problem challenges traditional views by questioning how we can justify our beliefs without entering into an infinite regress of needing further justifications. This dilemma suggests that if every belief requires another belief for justification, we could never arrive at a justified belief without falling into an endless cycle. This leads to significant implications for understanding knowledge and rationality, forcing theorists to reconsider their frameworks around belief justification.
• Compare and contrast coherentism and foundationalism as responses to the regress problem.
  • Coherentism and foundationalism both attempt to address the regress problem but do so in different ways. Coherentism asserts that beliefs are justified through their coherence with a network of other beliefs, suggesting no need for a starting point. In contrast, foundationalism claims that some beliefs are self-justifying and serve as a foundation for justifying other beliefs. This means foundationalism introduces certain privileged beliefs that do not require further justification, while coherentism relies on the interconnectedness of all beliefs within its system.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of infinitism as a solution to the regress problem compared to coherentism and foundationalism.
  • Infinitism offers a unique solution to the regress problem by allowing for an infinite chain of justifications without requiring foundational beliefs. One strength is its flexibility in accommodating complex webs of belief without getting trapped in circular reasoning. However, this could also be seen as a weakness since it raises questions about practicality and whether humans can actually navigate infinite justifications in real life. In contrast, coherentism provides a more structured approach through the interrelations of beliefs, while foundationalism simplifies the process by positing certain self-justified beliefs. Each solution has its merits and drawbacks, with infinitism standing out for its radical departure from traditional structures.

Related terms

Coherentism: A theory of justification that argues that beliefs are justified if they cohere with a web of interconnected beliefs, rather than relying on foundational beliefs.

Foundationalism: A theory that posits some beliefs are self-justified or foundational, serving as the basic building blocks for justifying other beliefs.

Infinitism: A response to the regress problem which suggests that justifications for beliefs can be infinite but still valid, meaning there is no need for foundational beliefs.