##### Epistemic Regress Problem

label Philosophy
account_circle Unassigned
schedule 1 Day
account_balance_wallet \$5

Lay out and explain what the Epistemic Regress Problem is. How does it begin and what are the main responses to the problem (e.g., infinitism, coherentism, etc.)? Provide at least a rough sketch of each of the responses and how they hope to deal with the Problem. What, briefly, do you think is the best response?

May 8th, 2015

1.      It seems that we have knowledge. To know a proposition P0 we must have a reason P1 that supports P0 by providing evidence for it. A proposition, however, is a reason only if there is a proposition that supports it. This requires that we have a reason P2 that supports P1, and so on. The resulting sequence of reasons is endless: infinite or circular. We cannot, however, acquire support by means of endless regresses. Thus we have no knowledge. That, roughly, is the epistemic regress problem. Some of our core epistemic assumptions are jointly inconsistent, a paradox. To solve this problem we must understand it. Unfortunately, the best extant statement of the problem makes unduly strong assumptions and thus does not The Epistemic Regress Problem, page 2 capture its deepest challenges. Contrary to the received version, the regress paradox is not just a problem about knowledge and justification, it concerns evidential support, a more basic epistemic value.
2. Call a finite or infinite sequence of propositions σ = 〈P0, P1, … Pn (…)〉 implicationordered (I-ordered) just in case σ has propositions in at least its first two places and every member of σ is implied by its successor, if it has one. Similarly, call a sequence of propositions σ support-ordered (S-ordered) just in case σ is I-ordered, the elements of σ are propositions relevantly accessible to a person at a time, and every member of σ is supported by its successor, if it has one. So a regress of reasons is an S-ordered sequence of propositions. An infinite regress of reasons is an S-ordered sequence every component of which has a successor. There are two kinds of such sequences, however, and I shall refine my terminology to capture this distinction. First, there are sequences with infinitely many filled places. Sequence σS = 〈I have three sisters, The number of my sisters = √9, I have three sisters, …〉 and the sequence σT = 〈I am at least 7 feet tall, I am at least 8 feet tall, I am at least 9 feet tall, …〉 have this feature. Call such sequences ‘endless.’ An endless regress of reasons, then, is an S-ordered sequence of propositions every member of which has a successor. Second, there are endless regresses with infinitely many components. Endless sequence σT has infinitely many components, unlike endless sequence σS. I reserve ‘infinite’ for sequences with infinitely many components. An infinite regress of reasons, then, is an S-ordered sequence of propositions σ with infinitely many components. Every infinite regress of reasons is endless, but not conversely. I now state the two versions of the regress problem. The constituent propositions are The Epistemic Regress Problem, page 4 given shorthand names and stated in (philosopher’s) English and in a first-order language. Let the variables ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’ range over the domain P of propositions relevantly accessible to a person at a time. Assign the one-place predicate ‘J’ to the members of P that are epistemically justified: the propositions that it is permissible, virtuous, or otherwise good for the person to accept at that time. Let the two-place predicate ‘S’ express the relation between members of P that obtains when the first is supported by the second.

May 9th, 2015

...
May 8th, 2015
...
May 8th, 2015
Oct 19th, 2017
check_circle