Bedrock
Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas, and submit new ideas.
Dirk writes:
Foundationalism, or justificationism, is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.
I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.
From BoI ch. 1 glossary:
[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Whereas foundationalism describes a prerequisite for knowledge to grow (properly). As in, needing a secure foundation or else the whole edifice falls apart.
I could see foundationalism being a flavor of justificationism, but not the same thing.
I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.
You are right. Foundationalism is a kind of justificationism. The secure foundation is a kind of justification.
I will have to rewrite this in my article.
The article says:
[Justificationism] is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.
This definition breaks with BoI. The glossary from ch. 1 says:
[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Note that this second quote says nothing about finality “beyond question”.
Just because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.
For a tiebreaker, consider this Wiktionary definition of justificationism (links removed):
An approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary…
Since this quote doesn’t mention finality, it sounds more in line with BoI.
Indeed. Justification without finality is fake.
"X is true because of Y, but we can discuss Y"
Is functionally the same as
"X is true and we can discuss why"
But this sounds like you’re saying justificationism is necessarily the same as foundationalism. Whereas in #4392 you agreed it’s only a kind of justifiationism.
“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
If finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
You could use your own definition of justificationism that equates it to foundationalism. But then you’d want to explain that choice.
Regardless, we’re getting too bogged down on terms. I think at this point it would be easier for you to just change your article so it either uses established terms with their accepted definitions or explains departures from them.
The article says:
A follower of the philosopher Karl Popper would object: isn’t this just foundationalism in disguise? … Popper showed that’s impossible: any justification needs a deeper justification, and that one needs another, so you either chase reasons forever or stop at one you can’t defend.
I didn’t read the entire linked page, but based on a word search for ‘regress’, it attributes the infinite-regress problem to Hans Albert, not Popper:
[Albert] argues that any attempt at justification faces a three-pronged difficulty that is traceable to Agrippa: One alternative leads to an infinite regress as one seeks to prove one assumption but then needs to assume some new one…
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) links to a secondary source on Popper. Secondary sources on Popper are usually bad. Use a primary source – something Popper himself said.
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) just links to an entire page with no quotes or section information. That makes verifying the information harder: readers would have to read the entire page.
Sources should be specific: either give a verbatim quote or link to a highlight.