Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
The word justification is usually used in philosophical circles when it comes to talking about knowledge and beliefs. To me it sounds a bit authoritarian, I have to justify whatever I believe (or else...). Who decides what is justified and what is not? What standard do we have to judge whether a believe is justified?
After all, common folks (David Hume called them "vulgar") don't feel the need to justify their beliefs, why should I?
Here's a link the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy where it talks about epistemic justification.
After all, common folks (David Hume called them "vulgar") don't feel the need to justify their beliefs, why should I?
Here's a link the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy where it talks about epistemic justification.
Comments (97)
You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others.
The metric for what is justified is varied, but generally the metric will be what others are willing to accept. Generally reason and logic are accepted by other humans but some humans have a very low bar for justification (like “faith”) or very high bar (a skeptic or scientist).
It seems like you're conflating contentions with beliefs. Beliefs are personal.
Im not sure why a personal belief would be any different. Seems like we might have different ideas of “belief”, could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief”?
No, because you're the one whos making that distinction, not me.
I'm making a distinction between contention/opinion (which has formal connotations) and belief (which has personal connotations).
So what is the difference between formal connotations and personal connotations that are pertinent here?
If its just a matter if of justifying to others or justifying to yourself then what I said still applies, the metric of justification doesnt change.
Those who are superior to you in a particular context. E.g. your teacher in school, or your boss at work.
The standard of the person who has more power in the institutional hierarchy than you.
Justification is all about the ground(basis) for the belief in question. Whether or not a belief is justified is determined by the truth/falsity of the ground(other beliefs that support the belief in question), as well as the reasoning method used to arrive at the belief in question. So, it doesn't do the notion of justification any 'justice' to ask "who?".
Perhaps an example would help...
If my lifelong friend has always owned a Ford, and I know that he was about to buy a new car last week because he told me so, and he picked me up in a new Ford this morning so we could go to our tennis courts to play our weekly matches, then I would be justified in believing that the new car he drove this morning was his new car.
Yeah, who cares whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, rational, and/or true? Be a force of nature.
Geez!
If you believe, you’ve already justified. Of course it’s authoritarian; you’re it.
Justification is needed when time comes to use knowledge as the basis for action. Actions have risks, consequences. I can't make a reasoned decision about the possible outcome of an action unless I understand the factual basis of my understanding, the uncertainties associated with it, and the justification for it.
Thanks, I will read it. :up:
But it does not follow from this that you have to justify all your beliefs. A belief can be justified without you having to justify it. After all, if we had to justify all of our beliefs, we would find ourselves unable to justify any of them, as every justification would appeal to some yet more basic claim that would itself require a justification, and so on. So you do not have to justify a belief in order for the belief to be justified.
As for your question - why do my beliefs need to be justified? - it cannot sincerely be asked. For you are asking to be provided with a justification, are you not? So in asking the question you acknowledge the importance of justifications.
You'd make a dreadful Doctor.
Patient: "Dr Dingo, I have a terrible pain in my gut"
DIngo: "Can you justify that? Present your evidence, or I will not take you seriously".
You don't have to justify your beliefs.
For a belief to be justified there needs to be a compelling reason to believe it.
Quoting Bartricks:chin:
That's all I have time for right now. :cool:
No, for a belief to be justified is for there to be a 'normative' reason to believe it. They're also called 'justifying reasons' for that very reason.
Look them up if you don't believe me.
Whether or when you need to be aware of the normative reason/s in question is another matter.
Where should I look them up?
Obviously not the context I was using “belief” in, but yes ok there are some “beliefs” that do not need to be justified to be taken seriously.
If he doctor said “i believe the best remedy for your gut pain is stabbing you in the gut with a knife” then he would need to justify that belief if we are expected to take it seriously. Thats what I meant.
Excuse my joke.
Me.
But you don't have to believe me.
Pretty compelling.
Well, "Banno says so" is an excellent justification.
Me: "Why do I have to mop the floor?"
Parent: "Because I said so!"
Excuse me for ruining it with a rebuttal. We’ll call it even. :wink:
But a "normative reason to believe" is just another way of saying "justification"
So for a belief to be justified is for it to be justified.
You're not exactly helping.
Don't be so hard on him!
Give him a chance to explain what "normative" means...
That makes sense.
I don't want to.
The best reason there is.
Quoting Mww
When are you not justified then?
:chin:
Well, can you give an example of a better reason?
Anything you want.
:chin:
I'm just trying to understand.
You being justified or not, is very different than a belief being justified or not. The thread concerns beliefs, not the holder of them.
When it contradicts experience.
Quoting Mww John is justified in believing that the cat is on the mat.
Quoting Mww John's belief that the cat is on the mat, is justified.
I believe that I am sane. :joke:
Anyway, a normative reason is typically characterized as a favouring relation. So, to have a reason to believe something is to the object of a favouring relation. It is to be 'favoured' believing it. Thus normative reasons are not things, per se. They are relations between things.
There are different kinds of normative reason - instrumental, moral, epistemic (more than this, but these are the main kind). But they're all justifying reasons. Sometimes we are justified in believing something on instrumental grounds - that is, there is overall instrumental reason to believe it; sometimes moral grounds - there is overall moral reason to believe it; sometimes epistemic grounds - there is overall epistemic reason to believe it. But evidence is made of epistemic reasons (having good instrumental or moral reason for believing X does not amount to there being evidence that X is true - Buddhists, for instance, will typically only offer instrumental reasons for believing in the truth of their stupid worldview, but even if such instrumental reasons do exist, they will never constitute evidence that the view is true....which is why serious philosophers don't tend to take Buddhism seriously).
So, all normative reasons justify and 'justifications' - all of them - are made of normative reasons. "I am justified in believing X, but there is no normative reason to believe it" is a contradictory statement. But philosophers - true philosophers - are only interested in uncovering what epistemic reasons there are, for those are what evidence is made of. (To have 'evidence' that X is true is one and the same as there being epistemic reason to believe X).
Anyway, to be justified in a belief is for there to be overall normative reason for you to believe it. That's a conceptual truth.
To 'justify' a belief, however, is different. That's to do something - that's to attempt to show that there are normative reasons for the belief in question.
So, the former is a status, the latter is an activity.
For an analogy, take being hated. That's a relation. Hate is not a thing, but a relation between things. And to be hated does not require that one do anything or know that one is hated. You are hated just if someone hates you. Maybe you know that they hate you, have some idea that they hate you, or have no idea at all.
Likewise, for a belief of yours to be justified is for your possession of that belief to be something you are favoured believing. Perhaps you know that you are favoured believing it; perhaps you have some idea you are; or perhaps you have no clue. Those are all compatible with you being favoured believing it (just as having no clue you are hated is entirely compatible with you being hated).
Justifying a belief is different, as already mentioned. Justifying a belief is an activity in which one attempts to show that one has normative reason for believing what one does.
That's not to deny that sometimes an attempt to justify a belief can result in that belief coming to be one that one is in fact justified in believing. That is, sometimes we may be justified in a belief precisely because we attempted to justify it and would not have been justified in it otherwise. (Just as, by analogy, one might come to be hated because one believes everyone hates one). The point remains, however, that to be justified in a belief is not of a piece with justifying it. And thus one can be justified in a belief even if one is unable to justify it.
This we can see both from an analysis of normative reasons themselves, and independently. For we can know that not all beliefs need justifying else we would not be justified in any of our beliefs (being so requiring that we have previously accomplished the impossible task of providing an infinity of justifications).
If you want others to believe the same, or take you seriously, then they may ask you for justification.
They'd be equally free to not take your word for it.
[sub]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy » The Analysis of Knowledge » 1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief[/sub]
A normative reason is given as the reason for an action, not for a belief.
Well, yes. It's part of Davidson's account, which I have read moderately closely. So, see, for example,
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199657889.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199657889-e-8
Or,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/
Or,
https://iep.utm.edu/kn-norms/
Need I go on?
Some, however, only apply to beliefs. Epistemic reasons - which are a kind of normative reason - apply to beliefs alone.
Yep. I should have known better than to enter into a discussion with you.
No, Bart, you did't say that. At no place, in anything you have said here, Did you used the word "action", until I pointed out your error.
If I was previously talking about beliefs that does not imply I think normative reasons apply to beliefs exclusively. Only someone quite dumb would think that.
Now, you said they apply to actions and not beliefs. What about epistemic reasons? They are normative reasons. And they apply exclusively to beliefs. (And all of the other kinds can apply to actions and beliefs).
What 'error' Banno? Identify the error in what I wrote.
You made one. A howler. You said they apply to actions, not beliefs. No. They apply to both. Apart from epistemic reasons. They apply to beliefs exclusively. As you know, of course.
Again, the point is that Bart's account is hopelessly confused, as must be any attempt to account for normative statements without mention of action.
Here's something else I didn't mention - I didn't mention that this:
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P
is fallacious. Applying Banno-logic that means that I think the above argument is 'not' fallacious. Yes? Ludicrous.
Normative reason are justifying reasons. They apply to actions and beliefs. You said - mistakenly - that they apply to actions alone. No, they apply to actions and beliefs.
There's one class of normative reasons - a class I highlighted - epistemic reasons that apply exclusively to beliefs.
Note too that the OP is about justifying beliefs. Hence it is entirely understandable why I would talk exclusively about beliefs and not actions as well, even though normative reasons apply to actions too.
Look matey, you don't know your stuff. I do. There's no error in anything I said above, there's just some appalling reasoning on your part. I defy you to find an error. You made one: you said normative reasons apply to actions, not beliefs and that somehow i was really confused in focussing on beliefs. They apply to both. And my focus on beliefs was entirely explicable given the context. Look at the OP. Look at the question posed. Then drop your working assumption that I don't know what I am talking about. You might learn something.
Justification is basically proving/demonstrating the truth of a claim. It's the hallmark of rationality but there's a catch. If rationality is so tough on claims, what about the statement, J = Justification is mandatory. If J, as per rationality, applies to all claims, it must apply to itself in the spirit of fairness.
My first encounter with this conundrum was around 8 years ago and back then it was just a question, "is there a justification for why justification is mandatory?" Someone, can't recall who exactly, edified me on the problem. To justify J, we assume J. Why else would we try and justify J? To justify J then is to commit the fallacy of begging the question.
Irony of ironies: Rationality decrees that justification is mandatory always and this must apply to itself but to justify that justification is mandatory is impossible (always begs the question). Thus, justificationism has no leg to stand on.
Seems like you’re nearing the threshold of (global/radical) fallibilism. :smile:
Yes to the quote, but, all the same, eppur si muove - as evidenced by the justification you’ve provided in your post.
So as to simplify matters, speaking here only for when we justify beliefs in good faith (rather than to bolster our attempts at successful deception, as one counterexample that occurs often enough in the world): Why do we justify our beliefs, because we want our beliefs to be accordant to what is real - and justification is the best way we can find of so establishing. And why do we want our beliefs to be true rather than false, because this best safeguards our eudemonia, so to speak. We first hold this impetus innately/instinctively before knowing how to speak, and then it becomes fortified by experience.
So there’s one alternative avenue for justifying justification.
There are two differences. One is the error of equivocation. John is the subject of the statement in the first, belief is the subject in the second, but the implication is that justification is the same for both. The informal fallacy lays in the implication that John is constructing a judgement which may or may not be true, insofar as the cat may or may not be on the mat, in the first statement. The implication carried by the second statement, on the other hand, is that John’s constructed judgement is in fact true.
The second difference is the conditioning of each statement by time. The one is a current judgement process of John’s believing, the other the judgement process for John’s belief is presupposed.
Easy-peasy.
I went all the way.
Quoting javra
I think I get it now, more or less.
Justification L:
Question: Is [justification justified (J)]?
1. Yes. There has to be a justification for J. However, if there's a justification for J, I'm presupposing J. J, that's why there's a justification for J. Circularity, unaccpetable according to the principles of justification itself.
Ergo, not J. In other words (Disjunctive syllogism),
2. No. Justification is unjustified (~J). Initially, I began to work with ~J to figure out what it entails what entails it, looking for inconsistencies, etc. but ~J is a conversation stopper! It's beyond justification. :zip: :brow: :chin:
The Good news: We have proven ~J (justification is unjustified).
The Bad news: We can't use justifications with ~J.
What's the situation here?
We've managed to prove ~J. That's all she wrote. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero had a maximum range of 1,870 km.
I take the situation to be in line with what @Pantagruel just said.
What you evidence is that normative reasons cannot be used to justify the use of normative reasons. This is rationally justified by use of normative reasons. Yes.
In my previous post, though, I was trying to detail how the use of normative reasons can nevertheless be itself justified by our motivating reasons. We are motivated to use normative reasons not because it is an infallible means of evidencing truths but because it is the best means we have at our disposal of so doing. There's no viable alternative to so doing that we know of. And, when it comes to motivating reasons, the buck stops with the nature of our will.
The conclusion that
Quoting TheMadFool
is evidently not true, as is evidenced by all the justifications going on. Dare I say, you will need to justify this bare affirmation if you want to establish it as just (correct). But in so doing you'll evidence it false.
Spot on! I agree whole-heartedly but that opens Pandora's box. Now, we can't be sure of anything at all. We were smug about deductive justification - conclusions were certain given true premises - but now, all bets are off.
Quoting javra
Haven't had time to mull over this as much as I'd have liked. I'll offer an argument which will, fingers crossed, drive the point home.
Justification = logic (arguments that demonstrate truth of claims)
Is justification justified (J) or is justification unjustfied (~J)?
Suppose someone comes up with a justification M that justfies J. The catch: Justification M presupposes J. In other words, M commits the fallacy of begging the question. Every justification for J commits the same fallacy. Ergo there are no justifications for J. Ergo, ~J!
~J!
Mu! :confused:
Then you will be trod upon.
Just because philosophizers don't use AK 47s doesn't mean they aren't engaging in battle.
Is it ever based on competence?
How could it possibly be, when we're embedded in some form of social hierarchy and competition or other? Even at an online discussion forum, if the mods and the Old Boys come in and tell you you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you still believe you're right, there will be no place for you at such a forum.
Some kind of competence is only significant when all the people involved are well-intended enough toward eachother, so that they suspend their usual commitment to hiearchy and competition. Ideally, a team that is working together on solving a problem is like that.
Further, for all practical intents and purposes, competence includes reading the social system correctly and responding accordingly.
For example, a student majoring in philosophy has to be careful not to disagree with their philosophy teacher, regardless of the good arguments the student believes to have. Because such disagreement could cost them a good grade or worse. (It's why a formal study of philosophy is a contradiction in terms.)
Only when one's temperament is driven toward infallibility, much as Descartes' was. This doesn't apply for the fallibilist. But trying for a simple approach to a complex issue:
Quoting TheMadFool
Neither. One cannot obtain justification for justification, much in the same way the eye cannot see itself. But this does not demonstrate, nor even insinuate, that justification does not do its job properly; in parallel, the eye still sees.
If you personally disagree and find justification to not be trustworthy, why continue in justifying anything at all, ever?
Who says they do? Do you think your beliefs need to be justified, and if so, who do you think they need to be justified to; to others or merely to yourself?
You'll only be trod upon if you choose to engage in argument on their own terms with the tiny minority of self-important idiots who consider themselves to be philosophers.
Rationality, for better or worse, is the self-proclaimed infallible authority. I'm merely testing it on itself. Fail!
Quoting javra
Quoting javra
:chin:
Quoting javra
This isn't me justifying anything. This is rationality vs rationality. Can rationality justify itself? No! It can't! There's more to this than meets the eye but, sadly, I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
So that sounds like you think prearranged status runs everything and there's no hope. Why would you still participate?
Quoting TheMadFool
It can't be, since reason evidences itself to be fallible, rather than infallible. See the previously arrived at conclusion that justification for justification cannot be obtained which we both agree upon.
Still, you got references for this proclaimed belief of yours? I ask because, as [s]explained[/s] justified above, it strikes me as glaringly incorrect: as it being an erroneous belief regarding reasoning, and not anything which reasoning itself evidences.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, yes. Agreed in full. And the point to this is?
Differently asked, we both appear to fallibilistically know that we infallibly know nothing. All well and good. I do believe this state of affairs regarding the human condition was discovered by schmucks millennia before we came along. Back then they went by the label of "thoughtful enquirers" or some such.
So what bearing can this fallible knowledge - of which we both appear to be quite certain/sure of (i.e., not a shred of doubt involved ... we're not skeptical about it) - possibly have on the experientially verified reality that what is true can be justified (yes, fallibilistically) without inconsistencies ever appearing, whereas what is false can always be found to suffer from inconsistencies?
Don't know about you, but beliefs riddled with inconsistencies are to me a red flag.
Because even hobitses are a pugilistic species, what to speak of humanses!
Life is not a court of law.
A whole science has sprung up out of this legalistic mindset. And it's the lawyers and control freaks who profit excessively from this dogma.
Interesting - can you give us some examples?
Well science,philosophy,academia,religious apologetics,public debates ,the legal system and politics are replete with discussions which are so convoluted and demanding of practical and abstract evidence that only those peer reviewed and in accordance with the accepted dogma and jargon can publish successfully.
Every politician appeals to the greater good when this is in fact horribly abstract and justifies any policy which lines the pockets of the government.
I can't appeal to common sense because justificationism is the only public game in town.
Just recently I went on a Buddhist site and was asked for proof to show the "self" was a real thing!
Yes you can, you just can't do it mindlessly.
EDIT: Or try and pass off ideosyncratic views as common sense, which happens a lot.
But the exact same applies to justificationism.
When was the last debate or post you saw settled by common sense?
I like the idea of common sense but it has such a broad definition.
I personally recommend feel. Faith only if you really trust that person.
Yeah,common sense is sometimes an abused term,but I think it does refer to a shared reality for some people.
When was the last time I saw a debate settled full stop? That's not a useful criteria and you've shifted your goalposts some. There is nothing stopping you appealing to common sense in a rigorous way. Whether it'll win you the argument is an entirely different matter. If you lose the argument with common sense, that might be your fault you know?
Show me some philosophers or scientists who proved their ideas with common sense?
Is this your first day of having conversations?
By the way, scientists make their arguments to each other, and it is based on sense (empiricism) and is common to them (in principle anyway: consensus). In that respect, it's the epitome of common sense, it's just that 'common' is across their community, not the global one.
That is not what is meant by common sense and you know it! That is the Elitist justificationism that I was talking about.
Indeed. I have a sneaking suspicion that I might have nailed your idea of common sense up front:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
By idiosyncratic of course you mean anything not accepted by scientism... Wonderful display of circularity and authoritarian thinking.
By ideosyncratic I mean ideosyncratic. Look it up.
Don't need to. I get your interpretation. Anything outside scientism is not valid. Proving my point of course,that justification is authoritarianism of a particular political ideology.
In order to raise venture capital.
Banno says so is an excellent justification because Banno says so.
Logic says so is an excellent justification because Logic says so.
Circulus in probando.
Heraclitus syndrome (misanthropy: man "hating" man): it is that which it condemns.