A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?

By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification.

I see the need for justification as part of the Burden of proof necessity and the rational requirement in the ethics of belief and these are Intellectual honest parts of good belief-etiquette

Belief-Etiquette

I value good Belief-Etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I am first always a rationalist, as reason is my only master. May I always be a truth seeker and not a blind faith believer. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

What we generally call “truth” is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves if validly justified it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth. Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? Yes and No. Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to a methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth.

Sound thinking (soundness arguments and statements) as it relates to philosophical thinking.

“Soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true. Sound Argument: (1) valid, (2) true premisses (obviously the conclusion is true as well by the definition of validity).” Ref Truth, Validity, and Soundness – Philosophy Courses Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy What Is Soundness? | Systematic Philosophy

VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS

From: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better by

J. Y. F. Lau (Author)9.1 VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS

Validity is a most important concept in critical thinking. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises. But what does it mean? Here is the official definition:

‘An argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.’

To put it differently, whenever we have a valid argument, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must also be true. What this implies is that if you use only valid arguments in your reasoning, as long as you start with true premises, you will never end up with a false conclusion. Here is an example of a valid argument:

This simple argument is obviously valid since it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premise is true. However, notice that the validity of the argument can be determined without knowing whether the premise and the conclusion are actually true or not. Validity is about the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. We might not know how old Marilyn actually is, but it is clear the conclusion follows logically from the premise. The simple argument above will remain valid even if Marilyn is just a baby, in which case the premise and the conclusion are both false. Ref

If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

A shallow thinker quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often are pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved or if actually confirmed as true or have a high likely hood to be soundly justified. Whereas, a Sound Thinker are truth seekers of actually confirmed as truth or things that have a high likelihood to be soundly justified. Thus, often a Sound Thinker first poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. Just remember a simple rule all beliefs need something to support them or they are at best unsupported accepted assertions, arguments or ideas. At worst completely baseless, misinterpreted confusions, or outright falsehoods. See it’s like this, if one feels something requires faith (unsupported cognition of acceptance) to see the thing as real; without realizing it, one has affirmed that such a thing is not likely a true part of reality.

A Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality

A Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking.

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.

As a general thinking in all my epistemology is Justificationism:(philosophy) an approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. “Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.” Ref

In a general way, “Justificationism” is the presupposition that claims to knowledge must be authenticated, certified, verified, validated, confirmed, proven, corroborated, back up, show to be accurate, confirmed or in some other way shown to be justified. In other words, if a belief is knowledge, then it is in some way justified, and if a belief is unjustified then it is not knowledge. Justificationism” is the presupposition that claims to knowledge are on trial and the desire is make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, thus in a Justificationism presupposition inquiry any claim to knowledge can be analyzed, for value by asking for its justification, and failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject that claim to knowledge until adequate justification is provided. In this context, a rational ethical belief (Ethics of Belief), is one which is justified, and a rational person is one who provides a rational ethical belief, with good reasons or proof to justify what is believed. For a justificationist, the purpose of philosophical investigation is not a search for faith (unjustified) belief, but only a search for justified true belief. This difference is subtle but important: while a justified belief is always rationally justified as true, it still must be realized that an unjustified belief is not necessarily always false but indeed is not justified. Failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject an offered claim to knowledge as unjustified belief (faith: belief without evidence or belief even up against contradictory evidence). These presuppositions constitute a reinforced justificationism uses and defines the rules by which competing proposals are evaluated, it can ensure any attempt to introduce faith (unjustified) belief(s) can be dismissed as unjustified. I don’t have trust issues it’s just from experience I know many beliefs are full of shit thus lack any good justifacation. I am 100 % psychologically sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason. The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend.

Justificationism

Antoni Diller

In my paper “Constructing a Comprehensively Anti-justificationist Position” I expound and endorse anti-justificationism and contrast it with justificationism. In that paper, on pp. 120–123, I summarise the key components of justificationism in seven theses; an overview of that account is included here.

(1)	Knowledge is defined as justified true belief

Bartley takes this standard analysis to be the unique determining feature of justificationism. Justificationists think this real definition of knowledge is important and many of them are seriously troubled by examples which show that it is flawed. (If you are unclear about the difference beween essentialist and abbreviatory definitions, look at my page on real and nominal definitions.)

(2)	Knowledge is subjective

The epistemological focus for justificationism is the knowledge that some individual or other has. There is, certainly, knowledge in this sense, but Popper has persuasively argued that it should not be the primary concern of epistemology; that should be objective knowledge.

(3)	Knowledge is understood as being certain

This has led many epistemologists to engage in what Popper, following Dewey, calls “the quest for certainty”. I write in my paper: “Anti-justificationists can have a lot of fun with any philosopher who claims that a particular class of statements or some specific proposition is certain and, therefore, immune from criticism, because, with a little effort, luck and creativity, it is possible to find a way of criticising any given statement.”

(4)	Justificationists are much concerned by what counts as a justification

In recent years the idea of justification has become increasingly important in analytical philosophy.

(5)	Criticism is fused with justification

Bartley was the first to realise this. He distinguished two ways in which such criticism can operate. In the first a theory is rejected if it cannot be justified from already justified statements and in the second a theory is rejected if it conflicts with justified statements.

(6)	Some statements cannot be criticised

A justification has to proceed from a collection of foundational statements that cannot themselves be justified logically. The collection of foundational statements, therefore, has to be thought of as being immune from criticism.

(7)	Knowledge grows incrementally

Knowledge is seen as growing in a non-evolutionary and non-revolutionary manner. This is because, if something is granted the status of knowledge, then, as it is certainly true, there is no way that it could turn out to be false. Once something is accepted as knowledge, it remains knowledge forever.

In my paper I also characterise anti-justificationism; if you click here this characterisation will open in a new browser window or tab, so that you can compare the two easily.

Reference

Antoni Diller, “Constructing a Comprehensively Anti-justificationist Position”, in Ian Jarvie, Karl Milford and David Miller (eds.), Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment, vol. II, Metaphysics and Epistemology, [London, Ashgate, 2006, ISBN 0-7546-5376-5], pages 119–129. This paper was presented at the Karl Popper 2002 Centenary Congress; a PDF version of it is available on this website, as is the the original abstract. Note that the title of the abstract is slightly different from that of the published paper.

Empty Vs. Valid Claims

I reject Empty Claims and Desire Valid-Justification in order to feel a motivation to believe that claims have met their burden of proof in the substantiation of the proposed meaning. To me, empty claims, assertions, assumptions, and beliefs are ideas that equal offered opinions without the fortifying substance of a valid justification to substantiate its proposed meaning. A general thinking in all my epistemology theorizing is Justificationism. By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification. I see the need for justification as part of the Burden of proof necessity and the rational requirement in the ethics of belief and these are Intellectual honest parts of good belief-etiquette. I value good Belief-Etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I am first always a rationalist, as reason is my only master. May I always be a truth seeker and not a blind faith believer. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason.

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

Reference

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest