Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, often attributed to Plato , is a fairly straightforward theory of knowledge. It states that something must be true if person S believes proposition P, proposition P is true, and S is justified in believing in believing that P is true . While many consider the JTB theory to be vital to the understanding of knowledge, some, such as American Philosopher Edmund Gettier, believe that it is flawed. I tend to agree with Gettier and others who object to the JTB theory as an adequate
is used to get at the “truth” of things. In this paper, I will discuss epistemology and further explain it by relating it to something that I use to believe to be true that I no longer do. As defined in the Oxford Dictionary, epistemology is “The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion”. From the class lecture, epistemology was defined as “facts, information,
that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge does not solve the Gettier problem. First, I will reiterate the Gettier problem. Second, I will show how Goldman's theory attempts to solve the Gettier problem. Next, I will show how over determination points out a major flaw for Goldman's theory. Finally, I will demonstrate that Goldman's theory does not work if the world we live in is not one of absolute truth and void of deception. First, when looking at the causal chain theory it is imperative that
The Coherence Theory of Justification Cohertism is an alternative to foundationalism, cohertism is the idea that new information is well justified and accepted as knowledge if it coheres (agrees) with our existing knowledge in a mutually supporting network Coherentism offers answers to some of the problems that arise with foundationalism, and therefore it offers an alternative or additional means of justify our belief systems. And in these systems we hold hundreds of beliefs that support
Ego and group justification state that individuals tend to view themselves and those in their in-group in a positive manner. Individuals also tend to view the system as fair, legitimate, and their actions justifiable. System Justification theory states that those who benefit the least from social arrangements are more likely to resist social change and defend the status quo. Further, those who suffer the most psychologically from a given set of circumstances will attempt to reduce dissonance through
Another popular approach to justifying punishment comes from retributivist theory, which can be divided into, first, the desert argument, and then the fair play argument. Before a discussion on these theories may begin, it is important to note that unlike the consequentialist argument that looks at the aggregate, these retributivist theories primarily situate the justification of punishment on the individual insofar as that the individual deserves to be punished. This paper contends that although
transgression. Punishment requires having a legal or political justification since it constitutes of inflicting a pain or deprivation which is equal to that which is inflicted by perpetrator of a crime on his victim. There are several philosophy punishment theories which include; deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, vengeance and restoration. All these theories have a justification for punishment of criminals. The punishment theories can be grouped into two general divisions in punishment
Veteran Mental Illness and System Justification Theory Rates of mental illness are rising among Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. This social problem has had significant consequences, such as spikes in homelessness, unemployment and suicides in this population. Many argue there are too many barriers to mental health treatment in a society that stigmatizes mental illness and undervalues mental health care. Research supports this assertion, particularly within the Veteran population (Greene-Shortridge
question, there are two main theories which should be mentioned. The first is a theory based on the idea that the shape of a molecule determines it’s scent in the human nose (TED). The second such answer is the theory that smell is linked to the vibrational frequency of a molecule (TED). This latter notion is one argued effectively by Luca Turin, a biophysicist who is part of the perfuming business (TED). Turin is the chief modern scientist when it comes to this vibrational theory, though he was not the
Why punish? Is the use of punishment ever Justified? In Punishment: The Supposed Justifications Revisited, Ted Honderich aim to answer these questions. Society needs to establish a well thought-out moral explanation as to why we punish and what we strive to achieve with the use of punishment as it is at the core of our punitive system. Honderich set out to analyze the supposed moral claims that justify the use of punishment and to determine if they are reasonable enough for the intentional infliction
In Punishment: The Supposed Justifications Revisited, Ted Honderich aims to analyze why we punish and if our punitive systems are ever justified. It is important that a society establish a well thought-out moral explanation as to why it punishes and what it strives to achieve with the use of punishment- as it is at the core of its justice system. Also, Honderich seeks to determine if the justifications for punishment are reasonable enough for the intentional infliction of suffering and deprivation
form a theory of externalism. He gives the reader a new point of view for observing the relationship between knowledge and justification. The following passage will weed out some important aspects of his theory and how they relate to his theory as a whole. In the beginning of his paper Goldman makes it clear that he would be moving away from the classical approach to understanding the relation between knowledge and justification. In “What is Justified Belief?” he argues that justification is necessary
Self-justification is analyzed through observation and experience rather than through theory or pure logic, it is supported by rationalization of escalation of commitment. Grounded on motivating reasoning conjecture, it is reasoned that the need for self-justification influence escalation of commitment secondarily through other cognitive developments. The furtherance of a failing strategy characterizes a compelling incentive for self-justification. This phenomenon, is acknowledged as the escalation
Copyright protection has no single theory that fully justifies its existence, nor can it. No two authors are the same and as such they are all motivated and incentivised in different ways; any justification for copyright in Anglo-American jurisprudence must be multifaceted to be able to fully justify the use of copyright. This essay will first explore the economic incentive theory for copyright, praising its effectiveness in commercial areas but ultimately finding that, especially in the age of the
In this chapter I will explore into the vireos issues regarding the concept of punishment and justification of the state. Why state punish and how much punish? What is the justification of state for punishment? Furthermore I will look at the comparison of theoretical arguments concerning the state punishment and the justification, than I will proceed to outline the concepts of minor and major offences. What kind of punishment inflicted for those offences? In the final part I will investigate the
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism. Foundationalism addresses the infinite regress problem in the following way: if person O is to be justified in having belief X, X must be justified by a further belief Y, which must inferentially
individual," then a purely rational justification for morality must become invisible to the latter. If I can show this, then I can show that rational justification can have no motivational power for the "liberal individual" and that Gauthier fails to answer the problem of moral motivation. I begin by making what I take to be a crucial distinction. This distinction separates two levels at which a contract theory may operate. At the first level the contractarian theory is directed at the question of
In his “Philosophical Explanations”, Robert Nozick produced his tracking theory of knowledge. This externalist theory is used to explain how through truth tracking we can obtain knowledge. He states that what we use to learn of the truth is the method. But Nozick denies the importance of methods in his theory, to the point were does not even believe that we have to know what the method is. Instead, Nozick allows us to use any method we wish to, so long as we only use one. But not all methods are
How can you rightfully justify a truth? Well there are some theories which contribute to the whole idea of understanding the basis of finding truth. The main fundamentals for determining whether something is right or wrong, one must first know there is a belief, one that is justified and that it is ultimately true. In many particular situations, conflict can build from justifying how well you know something is true due to evidence, supported claims and how much scrutiny is given by different, rather
According to the evidentialists, it is the possession of evidence for a belief. One theory, the infinite regress argument, proposes that other beliefs or reasons are such evidence. The infinite regress is one argument that philosophers employ when explaining justifications and knowledge in an evidential manner. Suppose you consider the justified belief, P, you might begin to wonder as to where P's justification originally stems from. If P is not a basic justified belief , but rather a nonbasic