Week 2: Skepticism

II. The Basic Foundationalist Picture.

In response to the infinite regress problem, foundationalist argue that there is a fourth option: which is that the infinite regress terminates at a self-justified belief.

Justified Basic Belief: A justified basic belief when at least some of its justification is not on the basis of any other belief. Some other names include “properly basic beliefs” and “immediately justified beliefs”. 

General Foundationalist Claim:

1. There are justified basic beliefs

2. All justified nonbasic beliefs are justified in virtue of their relation to justified basic beliefs

III. Locating the Justified Basic Beliefs.

Cartesian Standard of J-basicness (Mark of J-basicness) 

The belief that p is a J-basic belief IFF:

1. P is indubitable

2. Any belief that P is infallible 

Cartesian Indubitable definition: Indubitable means anyone who considers if p is true or not cannot doubt that p is true (automatically believe p). I.e. If a person has the J-basic belief (or what the proposition is about), and they consider it, they will definitely conclude that they do have whatever it is. Ipso facto he will believe himself to have it. 

Cartesian Infallible definition: There is no possible circumstances in which someone believes p, but p is not true. 

An example: I feel sick. Why? Because I feel pain in my head. Your evidence for pain in your head? I feel pain in my head. (Simply repeats the problem). 

But this is somewhat problematic - unhelpful. E.g. asking for feedback “The lesson was not helpful.” Your evidence? “It wasn’t helpful.” 

Which beliefs are J-basic?

1. Your beliefs about one’s own psychological states. E.g. what you believe you believe, desire, hope, fear, etc.

2. Appearance beliefs: The subject’s internal subjective experiential states which occurs in the person’s mind

What is Descartes’ strategy in using non-basic beliefs justifying beliefs about the external world?

1. J-basics are used to logically deduce that God exists

2. Demonstrate that it is inconsistent with God’s existence that our senses are being tricked

What is Chisholm’s strategy through Principles of Evidence (Give Principle B)?

If S believes, without grounds for doubt that he perceives something to be F, it is beyond reasonable doubt for S that their perception really is F. 

Example: if a duck is appearing duckly to you, and you don’t have other evidence for thinking there isn’t really a duck, you are justified in believing that there is a duck in the extenral world.

What is Chisholm’s strategy through Principles of Evidence (Give Principle H)?

When you have beliefs which have low levels of justification, but cohere with each other, they support each other, and their justification is increased -> moving towards beyond reasonable doubts