The Epistemic Regress Problem - Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY 

Z library and just search up “epistemology”

Stephen Gillie I'm not sure that the 5 Why's is specifically a systems engineering tool. My first exposure to the 5 Why's tool was through Six Sigma. It's definitely a useful tool to identify root causes though.

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

Leonardo Santos ok Thomas Kuhn. :)

Leonardo Santos it almost seems like science ties with all 3 of them. If we accept that everything is constantly changing, then we must assert that science will endlessly find new discoveries. Or because science is relied heavily on skepticism, it must endure an infinite regress to correct and change theories always in light of new and infinite discoveries. Science perhaps does not fit with foundationalism, but again with skepticism it does work as an axiomatic argument but where truth will forever stand inconclusive. Lastly the circular argument, which the practice of science seems to justify... Anyway just some gibberish that came into mind cheers

I like it. However, how can you tell that something is coherent or not?

Science deals with infinite progress by predictions. Any scientist who fits his model with new discoveries is a pseudoscientist

When the dad responds: because I sais so, then we have the foundation

Dad (D): "Time to go" Kid (K): "Why?" D: "Because we have to get home" K: "Why?" D: "Because we have to make supper." K: "Why?" D: "Because we are animals and animals need to eat." K: "Why?" D: "Because we need to get rid of bad stuff from our bodies and replace them with good stuff." K: "Why?" D: "Because life is a continuous active process of action, and if that process stops, life stops." K: "Why?" D: "There is no why, there is either life, with food, and playing at the park, or there is non-life with no food and no playing at the park. If we want to play at the park, we need to eat or else can not play at the park any more because we won't be able to move. So if you want to play at the park tomorrow, you have to make sure your body has food."

Illogical Immigrant tehehe

Because I said so that's why!

Good one , your comment made me think more than the actual lecture you are commenting about. Very strange

Dagobert Duck if your belief is true without reasons then it is only accidentally true. And of course, reasons are not infallible: one could have very good reasons for a false belief. But one could interpret what you are saying as a form of coherentism: logical coherence justifies beliefs.

Many explorations (ideas we got) was kind of accidents... We can not 100% verify (justify) our belief. We can not 100% falsify our belief. =Y Because we are probably unable to see holism, see Duhem-Quine Thesis... There is not more to say in philosopy...

A belief can be true without justification (which is mentioned in the video), but then it cannot qualify as *knowledge*. As for falsificationism, it is full of problems...

Poppers Falsification is great but it has it's limits. One example is probability, science uses probabilities all of the time and they are not falsifiable. Probability is often used in the field of quantum mechanics.

Hecatonicosachoron examples of problems?

Red Sparks this is very cool. Some epistemologists had called that way of acquiring justification as dialectical justification because you build your justification by answering questions as you do in a dialogue.

Thanks for that information on dialectical justification. I was doing it but didn't know I was doing it :)

That methode is well known. It's called obfuscation.

impalabeeper or fallacious arguments. Lol

Fallacious arguments are precisely where epistemic regress is not important. If two people who have no fallacies in their thinking at all disagree, it must boil down to different foundations of believes. If two irrational people argue, there might be no regress necessary because they probably just disagree due to fallacies they did not notice.

Hans Hintermann Precisely, precisely

@@hanshintermann1551 How can two opposing arguments both be without a fallacy? Im not trying to claim it cant happen. Im just not familiar with an example and would like to hear one.

@@jasonspades5628 Well, let's use social security as an example. Of course people can disagree about how much the government should get involved to provide healthcare, shelter, food etc. for a number of reasons, and a lot of the time the reasons are misinformation or fallacious reasoning. But sometimes it's just because one person values people's financial freedom more, and the other person values social safety more.

Why, because an altered state provides a superior insight?

@@karmalodro1593 no. Just a different perspective. It allows someone to learn from both frames of mind and thus potentially gain a greater understanding.

Based on this video, I wouldn't be surprised if that was true! :)

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

@thatchinaboi USA Popper's solution is a combination of infinitism and coherentism. Your (2) is false. We do make sense and use of infinite functions despite them never halting. E.g. calculus and pi. In epistemology it means no more than there is always more to discover. In critical rationalist terms there are always errors/problems to be solved that in turn create better problems.

i had this idea as well

I HATE what you said, and I hope everyone else agrees with me too

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

According to Wars and genocides it seems that survival and self-gratification are possible justifications for reasons.

@@dlon8899 Sorry, but I don't understand. Survival and self-gratification are good reasons for lying to yourself, i.e. self-justification. But that's more psychology than philosophical epistemology. Related to this video, I'm more interested in the philosophical side. I'm looking for ways to support beliefs that are true, or as close as we can get to knowing that something is true, not in justifying false beliefs.

@@macsnafu Maybe you could say that all reasons in the set of infinite reason are necessary. In that way you could say it is because it is.

@@azap12 Thanks for the reply. Of course you could *say* that, but saying it doesn't make it true. ;-)

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

Usually epistemologists view these 3 models as incompatibles. But some of them tried to accommodate them, as we can see in Susan Haack’s funderentism (fundationalism+coherentism).

It's not a problem, that's a illusion, there is no paradox in infinite cause after cause after cause, it's only a problem for finite minds. But circular causal loop definitely has a problem, because what caused the causal loop, therefore infinite branching of causes is the most solid and valid, and any circular causation are just finite features of infinite causal propagation.

Yes they mix well, math has foundations, pragmatic beliefs that may not be provable but lead to beneficial beliefs are not foundational. But then again we can twist words to mean what we want them to mean so it depends on our given word games.

@@leonardoruivo9169 Foundherentism is ultimately foundationalism though. If you're claiming there's a foundation for beliefs, that's foundationalism.

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

The philosophy of Objectivism does this. Reality is something you can be aware of. If you hit a contradiction you know that it must be the way it is because anything else would be a violation of the law of identity and the law of causality (which is just the law of identity applied to actions)

@@ExistenceUniversity Thank you.

susan haack, foundationalism+coherentism ?

it's when you believe everything that you found here 🤔.

That synthesis is called 'foundherentism' by Susan Haack.

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

Defining questions are the spoils of the winning team to enjoy...whenever

I think it depends on whether or not epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions. If you could say "what is the reason" a pencil falls down on this earth then you could give an explanation by refering to general laws of nature, x is caused by y which is caused by z. If you apply epistemic regression on what I'd call existentialist choices, you might have a harder time. Like why do you believe in god? There's probably an end to your line of argumentation where you can't describe a deeper level of causation as to why or why not you believe in god. Do we as animals shaped by evolution have that deep of a mind that our drives and decisions can be justified on an infinetely deep level?

Philosophical Overdose 😳 How do you know that a human mind is finite? At which stage of our evolution did such a mind cease to develop? Perhaps your point is better associated with our physical brain, as it is constrained by our 💀?

There are several. One is known as the ac/dc objection. Another has to do with the transmission of justification. Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start

I think the epistemic regression can be applied to scientific questions at least back to the big bang. We run out of data at that point. That doesn't mean there isn't any data. It just means we don't have access to whatever data is there if any. Maybe the question boils down to whether or not infinity exists actually. Mathematics uses infinity but that is potential infinity. The video stated that neither the skeptics nor the others accepted infinitism.

Our brains are probably finite but our imaginations may not be. Imagination is a product of our minds which is a product of our brains.

the point of epistemology is to arrive at truth and to delineate between untruth and truth aka knowledge. If you don't think knowing things is important, than yeah, this is ridiculous.

Is not the argument you make subject to skepticism?

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

Coherentisms "axiom" is the trustworthiness of the belief-system itself, and this can be questioned... and justified in many different ways (depending on witch version of coherentism one subscribes to). So coherentism does not have a foundation that doesn´t requier further justification.

Niklas Wingren well put it. And the same applies to infinitism. I think that the problem here is to understand that foundationalists need to say that foundational beliefs are different “in nature” of other beliefs. They call it basic beliefs to mark that distinction.

🤦

Niiice

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

@@thatchinaboi1 I would disagree with the premise "Not all axioms are assumed true." Give me an example of an axiom that is not assumed true. I deny that any proposition can be self-evident. Logic, as well as, mathematics and numbers requires relations and if relations are themselves incoherent as I would argue then not proposition can be self-evident. What do you mean by self-evident? True without requiring proof or reasoning? But the question is how do you know which brings us back the problem of the criterion. I would also disagree with your false dichotomy charge since foundherentism is a foundationalism in disguise. c.f. Haack's Foundherentism Is a Foundationalism by P. Tramel Self-evident propositions are assumed true. Otherwise, what do you mean by something is self evident. Ofcourse, this depends on your theory of truth. Claiming something is 'logically certain to be true and .... logically irrefutable.' Suggests implicitly that for something to be true, it must conform to logic. Therefore, you are using methodism to solve the problem of the criterion because it works with no way to justify what makes such a methodology truth bearing. The corollary is supposed to show that the conclusion can never be attained, since it is the person who argues against the corollary must be able to prove it is false, not the other way around. the conclusion does not seek to prove anything. It is simply highlighting that if justification is required for knowledge and all possibilities are flawed then the onus would be on the one who claims justification is possible to justify that statement. Munchhausen’s Trilemma is NOT self-defeating since it is not a proposition, theory or statement. It is a conjunction of several inconsistent but intuitive propositions. So it cannot be true or false since it is a set of propositions. To claim the conclusion is a self-refuting proposition, you would be equivocating between justification and truth. Since the conclusion itself cannot be justified then it presents the paradox it was meant to. Since the conclusion itself may lack justification, the onus would be one the person who denies it justification for an alternative since the conclusion logically follows. "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth" The Trilemma's conclusion has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with justification. What are the 'Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions' that you are referring to?

Jasper O'Reilly for some reason I was not notified of your response. I think you should tag my name next time since I randomly noticed you responded. I guess I'm attaching the concept of strong emergence to epistemic regress. I think it's accurate for now but in the future it may not be good enough. I see things like strong emergence and the Butterfly Effect, and much of so called randomness as our ignorance of the variables. Some things are just too complex for our ape brains and the computers we've made.

sjg1984 "Because I said, now get in your room!" :)

Human Evolution isn't this reasoning merely begging the question?

I really love this answer. Thanks man.

I did set it to 1.75 😱

LLK III and they would be right but that doesn't mean the objectivist claims beyond those are true.

Yeah, but that is hardly an answer to this problem, I would say.

But there's no guarantee that consciousness perceives things that exist correctly. There's no guarantee that our phenomenal experience corresponds to the noumenal world and I don't see an obvious way to link those two with just these axioms.

Axioms are subjective. Axioms are special pleading. I like to be just narrowly open-minded as possible

@@dlon8899 They say these three axioms are conceptually irreducible and any attempt to deny them actually performatively affirms them.

Because beliefs are necessary to consciously act. Pouring water into a glass rest on the belief that the glass can hold water and that water can be poured. People choose do things because they have some belief about effects those actions will have.

You believe in not having beliefs

1) Our beliefs are a mix of foundationalism and coherentism. The dichotomy between the two is false. 2) Infinitism is wrong because the human mind is limited in capacity. It assumes a conclusion that is impossible. 3) The problem with foundationalism and coherentism (or the combination of the two) is in the assumptions of our beliefs. 4) Not all axioms are assumed to be true. Some propositions are self evident. A priori deductions that are based on self evident axioms that are necessarily true (via Proof By Contradiction) are themselves logically certain to be true and therefore are also logically irrefutable. 5) Although there are very few non trivial (non mathematical or non tautological) propositions we can deduce to be logically irrefutable, they do exist. Examples of this are demonstrated by Parmenides Metaphysical and Ontological Deductions. 6) Based on all the previous points made, we have sufficient reason to REJECT the so called Munchausen "Trilemma", apart from the fact that it is a SELF REFUTING argument that assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove, which is "the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth". In fact we now have sufficient justification to KNOW that the trilemma is fallacious and erroneous. P.S. Karl Popper's "solution" is to accept the so-called "trilemma" as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism. (This is idiotic to say the least.)

@@thatchinaboi1 What?

@@ExistenceUniversity What don't you understand? 😂

@@thatchinaboi1 What you are on about? I cannot tell if you think you are helping or debunking, either way it's not working. Like who is "our"

Follow a religion, that'll solve your non-problem.

Wouldn't you rather have the burden of knowledge than the weightlessness of ignorance?

Read book Kohelet. You're not the only one with this problem, buddy.