Infinitism - Wikipedia Infinitism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Infinitism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Part of a series on Epistemology Category Index Outline Core concepts Belief Justification Knowledge Truth Distinctions A priori vs. A posteriori Analytic vs. Synthetic Schools of thought Empiricism Naturalism Pragmatism Rationalism Relativism Skepticism Topics and views Certainty Coherentism Contextualism Dogmatism Experience Fallibilism Foundationalism Induction Infallibilism Infinitism Rationality Reason Solipsism Specialized domains of inquiry Evolutionary epistemology Feminist epistemology Formal epistemology Metaepistemology Social epistemology Notable epistemologists René Descartes Sextus Empiricus Edmund Gettier David Hume Immanuel Kant W. V. O. Quine more... Related fields Epistemic logic Philosophy of mind Philosophy of perception Philosophy of science Probability v t e Infinitism is the view that knowledge may be justified by an infinite chain of reasons. It belongs to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that considers the possibility, nature, and means of knowledge. Contents 1 Epistemological infinitism 2 See also 3 References 4 External links Epistemological infinitism[edit] Since Gettier, "knowledge" is no longer widely accepted as meaning "justified true belief" only.[1] However, some epistemologists[who?] still consider knowledge to have a justification condition. Traditional theories of justification (foundationalism and coherentism) and indeed some philosophers[who?] consider an infinite regress not to be a valid justification. In their view, if A is justified by B, B by C, and so forth, then either The chain must end with a link that requires no independent justification (a foundation), The chain must come around in a circle in some finite number of steps (the belief may be justified by its coherence), or Our beliefs must not be justified after all (as is posited by philosophical skeptics). Infinitism, the view, for example, of Peter D. Klein, challenges this consensus, referring back to work of Paul Moser (1984) and John Post (1987).[2] In this view, the evidential ancestry of a justified belief must be infinite and non-repeating, which follows from the conjunction of two principles that Klein sees as having straightforward intuitive appeal: "The Principle of Avoiding Circularity" and "The Principle of Avoiding Arbitrariness." The Principle of Avoiding Circularity (PAC) is stated as follows: "For all x, if a person, S, has a justification for x, then for all y, if y is in the evidential ancestry of x for S, then x is not in the evidential ancestry of y for S."[3] PAC says that the proposition to be justified cannot be a member of its own evidential ancestry, which is violated by coherence theories of justification. The Principle of Avoiding Arbitrariness (PAA) is stated as follows: "For all x, if a person, S, has a justification for x, then there is some reason, r1, available to S for x; and there is some reason, r2, available to S for r1; etc."[4] PAA says that in order to avoid arbitrariness, for any proposition x to be justified for an epistemological agent, there must be some reason r available to the agent; this reason will in turn require the same structure of justification, and so on ad infinitum. Foundationalist theories can only avoid arbitrariness by claiming that some propositions are self-justified. But if a proposition is its own justification (e.g. coherentism), then it is a member of its own evidential ancestry, and the structure of justification is circular. In this view, the conjunction of both PAC and PAA leaves infinitism as the only alternative to skepticism.[5] The Availability of Reasons: Klein also relies on the notion of "availability". In other words, a reason must be available to the subject in order for it to be a candidate for justification. There are two conditions that need to be satisfied in order for a reason to be available: objectively and subjectively. An objectively available reason is stated as follows: "a belief, r, is objectively available to S as a reason for p if (1) r has some sufficiently high probability and the conditional probability of p given r is sufficiently high; or (2) an impartial, informed observer would accept r as a reason for p; or (3) r would be accepted in the long run by an appropriately defined set of people; or (4) r is evident for S and r makes p evident for S; or (5) r accords with S's deepest epistemic commitments; or (6) r meets the appropriate conversational presuppositions; or (7) an intellectually virtuous person would advance r as a reason for p."[6] Any of these conditions are sufficient to describe objectively available reasons and are compatible with infinitism. Klein concedes that, ultimately, the proper characterization of objectively available need be a member of this list, but, for the scope of Klein's defense of infinitism, he need not provide a fully developed account of objectively available reasons. Objective availability could be best understood, at least as a working definition, as an existing, truth-apt reason not dependent on the subject. A subjectively available reason is stated as follows: "S must be able to call on r." (Subjectively available is comparatively straightforward compared to objectively available.) The subject must be able to evoke the reason in their own mind and use the reason in the process of justification. In essence, the reason must be "properly hooked up with S's own beliefs" in order to be subjectively available. A reason that is both objectively and subjectively available to a subject is a candidate for justification according to infinitism (or, at least for Klein).[7] Objection to Infinitism: Klein addresses an objection to infinitism. The finite mind objection (attributed to John Williams): The human mind is finite and has a limited capacity. "It is impossible to consciously believe an infinite number of propositions (because to believe something takes some time) and it is impossible to "unconsciously believe"...an infinite number of propositions because the candidate beliefs are such that some of them "defeat human understanding."[8] It is simply an impossibility that a subject has an infinite chain of reasons which justify their beliefs because the human mind is finite. Klein concedes that the human mind is finite and cannot contain an infinite number of reasons, but the infinitist, according to Klein, is not committed to a subject actually possessing infinite reasons. "The infinitist is not claiming that in any finite period of time...we can consciously entertain an infinite number of thoughts. It is rather that there are an infinite number of propositions such that each one of them would be consciously thought were the appropriate circumstances to arise."[9] So, an infinite chain of reasons need not be present in the mind in order for a belief to be justified rather it must merely be possible to provide an infinite chain of reasons. There will always be another reason to justify the preceding reason if the subject felt compelled to make the inquiry and had subjective access to that reason. See also[edit] Fallibilism Finitism Perspectivism Regress argument Relativism References[edit] ^ Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins; Steup, Matthias (2017-03-17). "The Analysis of Knowledge". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). ^ Klein, Peter D.; Turri, John. "Infinitism in Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2015-06-19. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. ^ Klein, Peter D. (1999). "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons". Philosophical Perspectives. 13: 297–325. External links[edit] Infinitism at PhilPapers "Infinitism in Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. v t e Epistemology Epistemologists Thomas Aquinas Augustine of Hippo William Alston Robert Audi A. J. Ayer George Berkeley Laurence BonJour Keith DeRose René Descartes John Dewey Fred Dretske Edmund Gettier Alvin Goldman Nelson Goodman Paul Grice Anil Gupta Susan Haack David Hume Immanuel Kant Søren Kierkegaard Peter Klein Saul Kripke Hilary Kornblith David Lewis John Locke G. E. Moore John McDowell Robert Nozick Alvin Plantinga Plato Duncan Pritchard James Pryor Hilary Putnam W. V. O. Quine Thomas Reid Bertrand Russell Gilbert Ryle Wilfrid Sellars Susanna Siegel Ernest Sosa P. F. Strawson Baruch Spinoza Timothy Williamson Ludwig Wittgenstein Nicholas Wolterstorff Vienna Circle more... Theories Coherentism Constructivism Contextualism Empiricism Evolutionary epistemology Fallibilism Feminist epistemology Fideism Foundationalism Holism Infinitism Innatism Naïve realism Naturalized epistemology Phenomenalism Positivism Rationalism Reductionism Reliabilism Representational realism Skepticism Transcendental idealism Concepts A priori knowledge A posteriori knowledge Analysis Analytic–synthetic distinction Belief Common sense Descriptive knowledge Exploratory thought Gettier problem Induction Internalism and externalism Justification Knowledge Objectivity Privileged access Problem of induction Problem of other minds Perception Procedural knowledge Proposition Regress argument Simplicity Speculative reason Truth more... Related articles Outline of epistemology Faith and rationality Formal epistemology Meta-epistemology Philosophy of perception Philosophy of science Social epistemology Category Task Force Stubs Discussion v t e Philosophy of science Concepts Analysis Analytic–synthetic distinction A priori and a posteriori Causality Commensurability Consilience Construct Creative synthesis Demarcation problem Empirical evidence Explanatory power Fact Falsifiability Feminist method Functional contextualism Ignoramus et ignorabimus Inductive reasoning Intertheoretic reduction Inquiry Nature Objectivity Observation Paradigm Problem of induction Scientific law Scientific method Scientific revolution Scientific theory Testability Theory choice Theory-ladenness Underdetermination Unity of science Metatheory of science Coherentism Confirmation holism Constructive empiricism Constructive realism Constructivist epistemology Contextualism Conventionalism Deductive-nomological model Hypothetico-deductive model Inductionism Epistemological anarchism Evolutionism Fallibilism Foundationalism Instrumentalism Pragmatism Model-dependent realism Naturalism Physicalism Positivism / Reductionism / Determinism Rationalism / Empiricism Received view / Semantic view of theories Scientific realism / Anti-realism Scientific essentialism Scientific formalism Scientific skepticism Scientism Structuralism Uniformitarianism Vitalism Philosophy of Physics thermal and statistical Motion Chemistry Biology Geography Social science Technology Engineering Artificial intelligence Computer science Information Mind Psychiatry Psychology Perception Space and time Related topics Alchemy Criticism of science Descriptive science Epistemology Faith and rationality Hard and soft science History and philosophy of science History of science History of evolutionary thought Logic Metaphysics Normative science Pseudoscience Relationship between religion and science Rhetoric of science Science studies Sociology of scientific knowledge Sociology of scientific ignorance Philosophers of science by era Ancient Plato Aristotle Stoicism Epicureans Medieval Averroes Avicenna Roger Bacon William of Ockham Hugh of Saint Victor Dominicus Gundissalinus Robert Kilwardby Early modern Francis Bacon Thomas Hobbes René Descartes Galileo Galilei Pierre Gassendi Isaac Newton David Hume Late modern Immanuel Kant Friedrich Schelling William Whewell Auguste Comte John Stuart Mill Herbert Spencer Wilhelm Wundt Charles Sanders Peirce Wilhelm Windelband Henri Poincaré Pierre Duhem Rudolf Steiner Karl Pearson Contemporary Alfred North Whitehead Bertrand Russell Albert Einstein Otto Neurath C. D. Broad Michael Polanyi Hans Reichenbach Rudolf Carnap Karl Popper Carl Gustav Hempel W. V. O. Quine Thomas Kuhn Imre Lakatos Paul Feyerabend Jürgen Habermas Ian Hacking Bas van Fraassen Larry Laudan Daniel Dennett Category  Philosophy portal  Science portal Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinitism&oldid=992647346" Categories: Epistemological theories Internalism and externalism Infinity Justification Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from June 2015 All articles needing additional references All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from March 2016 Articles with Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy links Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version Languages Français 한국어 Suomi Edit links This page was last edited on 6 December 2020, at 11:12 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement