Search Ideas

Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code.

Option 1: when you create a discussion, an embed code is shown, which you can paste anywhere.

Idea: embedded discussions on third-party websites.

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.

No, I’m saying the model you’re using claims they’re the same thing, contrary to your prior agreement in #4392. They’re still not actually the same thing, see #4387.

If finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.

In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.

So? How is that foundationalism?

So? How is that foundationalism?

This seems overkill for now. If people want to do this off-platform and then feed it into Veritula, they can do that.

“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.

Implemented as of ecc72ff. Check your profile.

This is the first idea posted straight to my profile, outside of discussions.

Dollar-Cost Averaging

Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.

This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).

Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.

In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But again, the idea is typically to invest regardless of market developments. I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.

… regardless of market developments.

vs

You also get to react to developments …

A contradiction.

Why does this sound like I am equating them?

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.

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.

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"

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.

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 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…

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.

Just because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.

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”.