inojimo pagrindimas Justification of Knowledge

1
inojimo pagrindimas(Justification of Knowledge)

• Fundamentalizmas (foundationalism), akivaizdios
  inios, koherentizmas.

2
Foundationalism

• Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology
  (typically, theories of justification, but also
  of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are
  justified (known, etc.) based on what are called
  basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational
  beliefs). Basic beliefs are beliefs that give
  justificatory support to other beliefs, and more
  derivative beliefs are based on those more basic
  beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be
  self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they
  are justified, although not justified by other
  beliefs. Typically and historically,
  foundationalists have held either that basic
  beliefs are justified by mental events or states,
  such as experiences, that do not constitute
  beliefs (these are called nondoxastic mental
  states), or that they simply are not the type of
  thing that can be (or needs to be) justified.
• Hence, generally, a foundationalist might offer
  the following theory of justification
• A belief is epistemically justified if and only
  if (1) it is justified by a basic belief or
  beliefs, or (2) it is justified by a chain of
  beliefs that is supported by a basic belief or
  beliefs, and on which all the others are
  ultimately based.
• A basic belief, on the other hand, does not
  require justification because it is a different
  kind of belief than a non-foundational one.
• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

3
The Munchhausen-Trilemma

• The Munchhausen-Trilemma, also called Agrippa's
  Trilemma, is a philosophical term coined to
  stress the impossibility to prove any certain
  truth even in the fields of logic and
  mathematics. It is the name of a logical proof in
  the theory of knowledge going back to the German
  philosopher Hans Albert. The term is ironically
  named after Baron Munchhausen, who allegedly
  pulled himself out of the quagmire by seizing
  himself at the shock of his hair. This proof runs
  as follows All of the only three ("tri"-lemma)
  possible attempts to get a certain justification
  must fail
• All justifications in pursuit of certain
  knowledge have also to justify the means of their
  justification and doing so they have to justify
  anew the means of their justification. Therefore
  there can be no end. We are faced with the
  hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
• One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or
  fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra'
  or at any other evidence, but in doing so the
  intention to install certain justification is
  abandoned.
• The third horn of the trilemma is the application
  of a circular and therefore invalid argument.
• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa27s_Trilemma

4
Coherentism

• There are two distinct types of coherentism. One
  refers to the coherence theory of truth. The
  other is belief in the coherence theory of
  justification an epistemological theory
  opposing foundationalism and offering a solution
  to the regress argument. In this epistemological
  capacity, it is a theory about how belief can be
  justified.
• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

5
a self-evident proposition

• In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is
  one that is known to be true by understanding its
  meaning without proof.
• Some epistemologists deny that any proposition
  can be self-evident. For most others, the belief
  that oneself is conscious is offered as an
  example of self-evidence. However, one's belief
  that someone else is conscious is not
  epistemically self-evident.
• The following metaphysical propositions are often
  said to be self-evident
• A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
• It is impossible for the something to be and not
  be at the same time in the same manner.
• Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are
  considered fallacious or abusive in debate. For
  example, if a proposition is claimed to be
  self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to
  assert that disagreement with the proposition
  indicates misunderstanding of it.
• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

6
(No Transcript)
7
Seminaro uduotis

• Parengti mediagos pagal tema iniu
  pagrindimas fundamentalizmas (foundationalism),
  akivaizdios inios, koherentizmas
• kompiliacija naudotis spausdintais ir/ arba
  interneto altiniais (nemaiau i 3 altiniu) i
  wikipedijos - neimti
• Apibendrinima, analize 200 odiu
• Savo nuomone 3-5 sakiniai (apie 50 odiu)
• Prie kiekvieno altinio teksto (prie teksta)
  pateikti jo bibliografini apraa
• Parengta teksta pateikti spausdinta seminaro
  pradioje
• Kiekvienos uduoties vertinimas ieis i egzamino
  paymi
• Paveluotos uduotys nepriimamos