# Justifications 1. regress, 2. self-justified, 3. not justified.

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Epistemology
3. » Justifications 1. regress, 2. self-justified, 3. not justified.

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:56 pm
Let M be a principle of justification.

M states:

If P is justified, then there exist Q, such that Q justifies P, or we can denote Q=>P.

There are 3 possible cases for Q.
There are:

1. Q is self-justified.
2. Q is not justified.
3. Q is justified.

case 2: Look, if we say P is justified because of Q, and Q is not justify, then it seems we are not justified in P. Contradiction.

case 3: Since Q is justified, then we can apply principle M to Q, and thus produce E, such that E=>Q. I see a regress.

case 1: The only case i see such that Q is self-justified are analytic propositions. Propositions like "1+1=2", and "bachelors are unmarry" etc. They can` t really "touch" reality. Knowing only analytic propositions will not tell me if gravity is described be newton` s theory of gravitation, or enstein` s theory of gravitation. There need to be "synthetic propositions" ( as philosophers will say). So, we can be more specific, and ask the justification of a synthetic proposition P, and apply the same reasoning as i have done

Emil

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 04:52 pm
@vectorcube,
Symbols and implication
Careful with that symbolization. "⇒" is usually used to mean logical/material implication. But most of the propositions that we believe are not logically/materially implied by other propositions that we believe. They are only probabilified (made probable). There is no standard symbolization for that AFAIK. To say that a proposition is probabilified by another proposition may be formalized like this: Pr(P|Q)>Pr(P). In english. The probability of P given Q is larger than the initial probability of P.

Your categories are not mutually exclusive. (1) is a subset of (3). You could change (3) to "justified by other proposition(s)". Then they would be mutually exclusive. I think I would categorize them as this:
[INDENT]1. Justified
1.1. Justified by self (or similar)
1.2. Justified by others
2. Not justified.
[/INDENT]
Beginner
Regress argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Serious
Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

kennethamy

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 11:24 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;97313 wrote:
Let M be a principle of justification.

M states:

If P is justified, then there exist Q, such that Q justifies P, or we can denote Q=>P.

There are 3 possible cases for Q.
There are:

1. Q is self-justified.
2. Q is not justified.
3. Q is justified.

case 2: Look, if we say P is justified because of Q, and Q is not justify, then it seems we are not justified in P. Contradiction.

case 3: Since Q is justified, then we can apply principle M to Q, and thus produce E, such that E=>Q. I see a regress.

case 1: The only case i see such that Q is self-justified are analytic propositions. Propositions like "1+1=2", and "bachelors are unmarry" etc. They can` t really "touch" reality. Knowing only analytic propositions will not tell me if gravity is described be newton` s theory of gravitation, or enstein` s theory of gravitation. There need to be "synthetic propositions" ( as philosophers will say). So, we can be more specific, and ask the justification of a synthetic proposition P, and apply the same reasoning as i have done

Why, if Q is not justified, but Q justifies P, is not P justified? Why must the justifier be justified?

vectorcube

Thu 15 Oct, 2009 01:26 am
@Emil,
Emil;97502 wrote:
Symbols and implication
Careful with that symbolization. "⇒" is usually used to mean logical/material implication. But most of the propositions that we believe are not logically/materially implied by other propositions that we believe. .

Not saying it is.

Quote:

Your categories are not mutually exclusive. (1) is a subset of (3). You could change (3) to "justified by other proposition(s)". Then they would be mutually exclusive. I think I would categorize them as this:
[INDENT]1. Justified
1.1. Justified by self (or similar)
1.2. Justified by others
2. Not justified.
[/INDENT]

Sure. I personally am not compel to change it.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 02:32 AM ----------

kennethamy;97554 wrote:
Why, if Q is not justified, but Q justifies P, is not P justified? Why must the justifier be justified?

It seems right that if we believe P because of Q, then there ought to be some compelling reasons for our acceptence of Q as a premise to support P. Don` t you think?

Emil

Thu 15 Oct, 2009 07:23 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;97568 wrote:
Not saying it is.

Good.

Quote:
Sure. I personally am not compel to change it.

Right.

Quote:
It seems right that if we believe P because of Q, then there ought to be some compelling reasons for our acceptence of Q as a premise to support P. Don` t you think?
Generally, yes, but it may be that some proposition(s) need not be justified for humans to believe in them 'rationally'.

mickalos

Thu 15 Oct, 2009 09:25 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;97313 wrote:
Let M be a principle of justification.

M states:

If P is justified, then there exist Q, such that Q justifies P, or we can denote Q=>P.

There are 3 possible cases for Q.
There are:

1. Q is self-justified.
2. Q is not justified.
3. Q is justified.

case 2: Look, if we say P is justified because of Q, and Q is not justify, then it seems we are not justified in P. Contradiction.

case 3: Since Q is justified, then we can apply principle M to Q, and thus produce E, such that E=>Q. I see a regress.

case 1: The only case i see such that Q is self-justified are analytic propositions. Propositions like "1+1=2", and "bachelors are unmarry" etc. They can` t really "touch" reality. Knowing only analytic propositions will not tell me if gravity is described be newton` s theory of gravitation, or enstein` s theory of gravitation. There need to be "synthetic propositions" ( as philosophers will say). So, we can be more specific, and ask the justification of a synthetic proposition P, and apply the same reasoning as i have done

"Is the justification justified?" isn't very clear at all, and it seems like we are questioning the justification of things in different logical categories, so we should try to break it down.

When we say something is justified we are saying that it meets certain justification conditions, any other understanding of justification is meaningless. For example, in causal theories of knowledge, X is justified in believing P if P caused X to believe P. The justification condition "P caused X to believe P" is not something that can be described as justified or unjustified, it is a statement, it is either true or false. To say "Is 'P caused X to believe P' justified?" and mean anything other than "Is it true?" is literal nonsense.

You could ask, "is causation a good justification condition for knowledge?" which could be clumsily rephrased as, "are we justified in using causation as a justification criterion for knowledge?" Well, we are if it accurately captures the meaning knowledge, which is another statement that is either true or false, and it's hard to see where to go from there. I don't think there's any regress.

kennethamy

Fri 16 Oct, 2009 01:39 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;97568 wrote:
Not saying it is.

Sure. I personally am not compel to change it.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 02:32 AM ----------

It seems right that if we believe P because of Q, then there ought to be some compelling reasons for our acceptence of Q as a premise to support P. Don` t you think?

No. We may have no justification for Q, but that does not mean that Q does not justify P. Q justifies P if Q makes it likely that P is true. Whether Q is true or is justified is an important, but different issue. Justification need not be like a pyramid, but like a boat (or a raft).

I am alluding to Otto Neurath's boat.

http://www.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/slides/sosa/sosai.html

See also, The Web of Belief by W. Quine, and J. Ullian which presents a different picture of justification.

Emil

Fri 16 Oct, 2009 01:56 pm
@mickalos,
mickalos;97804 wrote:
"Is the justification justified?" isn't very clear at all, and it seems like we are questioning the justification of things in different logical categories, so we should try to break it down.

When we say something is justified we are saying that it meets certain justification conditions, any other understanding of justification is meaningless. For example, in causal theories of knowledge, X is justified in believing P if P caused X to believe P. The justification condition "P caused X to believe P" is not something that can be described as justified or unjustified, it is a statement, it is either true or false. To say "Is 'P caused X to believe P' justified?" and mean anything other than "Is it true?" is literal nonsense.

You could ask, "is causation a good justification condition for knowledge?" which could be clumsily rephrased as, "are we justified in using causation as a justification criterion for knowledge?" Well, we are if it accurately captures the meaning knowledge, which is another statement that is either true or false, and it's hard to see where to go from there. I don't think there's any regress.

What about knowledge of non-contingent things such as mathematics and logic?

There is also another confusion. What is believed is propositions, not matters of fact. But it is matters of facts that cause things, not propositions. You need to re-word the causal justification condition to accommodate this.

ACB

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;97829 wrote:
No. We may have no justification for Q, but that does not mean that Q does not justify P. Q justifies P if Q makes it likely that P is true. Whether Q is true or is justified is an important, but different issue. Justification need not be like a pyramid, but like a boat (or a raft).

Can you give an example of a case where you would say that Q is unjustified but nevertheless justifies P? Does "unjustified" mean the same as "irrational", and if not, what is the difference?

kennethamy

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:30 am
@ACB,
ACB;98060 wrote:
Can you give an example of a case where you would say that Q is unjustified but nevertheless justifies P? Does "unjustified" mean the same as "irrational", and if not, what is the difference?

Sure. X is a brother, so X is a male. But X is a brother is not justified (although it may be true, of course). But, a lot depends on what is meant by "justified", of course. In any case, Q may justify P without anyone knowing whether Q is justified. And, Q may not be justified does not mean that Q is unjustified.

All this aside, your idea of justification leads to a regress because it is a foundational idea of justification. But, there is a different idea of justification with is not foundational, where a proposition is justified by being a member of a coherent set of propositions, all of which justify any single one.

As for your question, propositions cannot be irrational or rational. Beliefs can be irrational or rational. A belief which is not justified may be non-rational, but need not be irrational. (Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say that holding an unjustified believe is non-rational, but need not be irrational). An irrational belief is contrary to reason. A non-rational belief need not be contrary to reason.

Fil Albuquerque

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:11 am
@vectorcube,
U for Universe, its self justified as it is the condition for justification itself, if one consider that U is everything of course...P as a part of the Universe is justified by U witch is self justified...but P as a result of the total "Gestalt" inflection of U is also self justified once it matches U nature presence in itself, witch is self justified...therefore U is justified by P as P also reflects its presence in U...
U is ONE
! ...and P a definition of U...

P = U

Principles:
1- Being is a justification for itself.
2- being a part of something is a valid condition for justification.

P = U reminds me that P = nP

Justified = Caused

(unfinished)

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

kennethamy

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:28 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98072 wrote:
U for Universe, its self justified as it is the condition for justification itself, if one consider that U is everything of course...P as a part of the Universe is justified by U witch is self justified...but P as a result of the total "Gestalt" inflection of U is also self justified once it matches U nature presence in itself, witch is self justified...therefore U is justified by P as P also reflects its presence in U...
U is ONE
! ...and P a definition of U...

P = U

Principles:
1- Being is a justification for itself.
2- being a part of something is a valid condition for justification.

P = U reminds me that P = nP

(unfinished)

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Things like the universe are not justified or unjustified anymore than chairs or tables are justified or unjustified. It is beliefs or propositions that can be either justified or unjustified. Just as it makes no sense to point to a table and say of it that the table is justified or unjustified, so it makes no sense to say of the universe that it is either justified or unjustified.

Fil Albuquerque

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98091 wrote:
Things like the universe are not justified or unjustified anymore than chairs or tables are justified or unjustified. It is beliefs or propositions that can be either justified or unjustified. Just as it makes no sense to point to a table and say of it that the table is justified or unjustified, so it makes no sense to say of the universe that it is either justified or unjustified.

By justification I mean Cause, that simple !
The point is about Cause not the specific term that is in use...

Thanks anyway

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

kennethamy

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:51 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98095 wrote:
By justification I mean Cause, that simple !
The point is about Cause not the specific term that is in use...

Thanks anyway

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Causes are not justifications. The cause of someone's death may be a heart attack, but it is not a justification of his heart attack (whatever that might be). So, if you mean "cause", then say "cause". Otherwise, how can we tell what you are saying? If you mean by "self-justified", "self-caused", then the question is how anything can be self-caused, since in order for C to cause E, C must occur before E. But nothing can occur before itself, so nothing can be self-caused.

Fil Albuquerque

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98103 wrote:
Causes are not justifications. The cause of someone's death may be a heart attack, but it is not a justification of his heart attack (whatever that might be). So, if you mean "cause", then say "cause". Otherwise, how can we tell what you are saying? If you mean by "self-justified", "self-caused", then the question is how anything can be self-caused, since in order for C to cause E, C must occur before E. But nothing can occur before itself, so nothing can be self-caused.

Emil

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:59 am
@vectorcube,
Beliefs are justified or not justified relative to some threshold. Usually the one required for knowledge. Beliefs are more or less justified. It is a continuum. Beliefs are not true or false.

Propositions are not justified or not justified. They are not more or less justified either. They are true or false.

Fil Albuquerque

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:05 am
@Emil,
Emil;98108 wrote:
Beliefs are justified or not justified relative to some threshold. Usually the one required for knowledge. Beliefs are more or less justified. It is a continuum. Beliefs are not true or false.

Propositions are not justified or not justified. They are not more or less justified either. They are true or false.

...In my point of view only what its true is justified...

kennethamy

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:08 am
@Emil,
Emil;98108 wrote:
Beliefs are justified or not justified relative to some threshold. Usually the one required for knowledge. Beliefs are more or less justified. It is a continuum. Beliefs are not true or false.

Propositions are not justified or not justified. They are not more or less justified either. They are true or false.

My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false.
My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge.
To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified stipulation, but right now, I don't see why it is.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 12:16 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;98110 wrote:
...In my point of view only what its true is justified...

But that is not how the term, "justified" is normally used. My belief that Mary owned that house was justified because she was nearly always there, and she also slept there many times, and I was told that she paid the mortgage on the house. But, it turned out that she was a very good friends with the person who did own the house who was away for a while, and Mary was permitted to use the if she paid the the mortgage. So, my belief that she owned the house was justified, but I was mistaken.

Fil Albuquerque

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:20 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98112 wrote:
My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false.
My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge.
To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified stipulation, but right now, I don't see why it is.

My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false. (Justified or not...)

My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) (therefore Truthful...) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge. ( The smile is proof, in this case, of being nice...)

To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified

JUS = Right = LAW = TRUE

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

kennethamy

Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:24 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98115 wrote:
My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false. (Justified or not...)

My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) (therefore Truthful...) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge. ( The smile is proof, in this case, of being nice...)

To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified

JUS = Right = LAW = TRUE

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

I know that is what you believe. But have you any good reason for believing it?

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Epistemology
3. » Justifications 1. regress, 2. self-justified, 3. not justified.