The Epistemic Regress Problem - Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

"But why?". In this Wireless Philosophy video, Kevin McCain (University of Alabama at Birmingham) explains the Epistemic Regress Problem. The epistemic regress problem arises from the need to give a reason for your belief, a reason for that reason, and so on. After explaining the problem, he explains how the problem has been used to argue in favor of skepticism, and discusses three possible solutions to the problem.

More on Kevin McCain:

----

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[fgdaserh]

It would be great if at the end of each video you had a few book recommendations for the people who want to study on said subject.

[__-hlbh]

Bruh, the child's questions is only covered by infinitislism. How does the child question fit into the other two?

Please answer, I'm still at the park with this kid

[namapalsu]

Btw, the three options (foundation, infinite, circular) is what is colled Munchhausen trilemma or Agrippan trilemma.

[StephenGillie]

There's a Systems Engineering concept called "5 Whys", where you take any operational situation and go at least 5 regressions.

[impalabeeper]

Sounds like epistemic regression is a characteristic of every internet argument.

[daisyduck]

Karl Popper says your belief can probably be true even if you don't have any reasons... Your belief can be untrue even if you have tons of reasons and experience. But if experience is unlogical to your believe your belief is probably untrue... What he wanna say is that you can not justify your belief by reasons or experience... You only can falsify your belief...

[Leo-pwkf]

I think that in practice a lot of people are coherentists. Namely, most scientists fit under this category. Scientific measurements and instruments are usually validated by testing how well they pair up with the existing organon, which is in turn adjusted to fit new discoveries.
Even if you trace back the philosophy of science to its most basic level, the credibility of science is defended with pragmatism--science generates useful beliefs. That is to say, science generates a coherent picture; it doesn't matter if this picture holds up to an ideal of Truth, what matters is that its structure does not crumble when faced with experience.

[leaddice]

I’d flip that pyramid around, there is a foundation that can be reached. But the implications will not stop. There is only a peak at this particular point in time

[MisakaMikotoDesu]

The skeptics are right. Trying to shoe horn all this nonsense is ridiculous.
Beliefs don't have to be justified or true, even if it does have more practical benefits. Seeing as most of our beliefs are inevitably going to be based on shoddy evidence, doesn't it seem like unjustified and untrue beliefs would be a more interesting topic?

[TheSonofagun]

does it mean that in coherentism there is already an established truth wherein we only put into the "web" those things that corresponds and or fit with that established truth and reject if it does not?

[bills]

Is it possible to have a mix of these justifications? Foundationalism for some of your beliefs, infinitism for others, and coherentism for others? Or do all beliefs have to follow one system

[redsparks]

Best explanation ever! Really enjoyed this. BTW in regards to the parent and child situational, as being the parent answering the child's questions, then at some point I would find an opening in the line of questions from the child to turn the questions back on the child so that the child must then find answers for themselves. For example when the child asked "Why do we have to go home?" then I would answer not with a statement but with a question that directs the child's mind to where I want it to go, such as, "Are you hungry?" If the child says "Yes" then I would ask (not tell) the child "Then don't you think we should go home to eat now?" But if the child says "No" then I am screwed until I find another such opening. Maybe a more open question would be better, such as, "Well how are you feeling right now?" Then if the child says "Hungry" then well you know the rest.

[HopHeadScott]

Fallibilism and Popper's critical rationalism should have been described as an approach that rejects justificationism.

[abdul]

I'd love to re-attempt to understand this high

[alittax]

What a beautiful summary, thank you! :)

I love Philosophy, but I feel sometimes it can be useless. If you ask why many times, you reach to the truth. And the truth most of the time is very abstract. It maybe nonsense to ask deep meaning of our behavior as it is always ended up to the abstract idea. But close to that truth we may justify the core reason.

[ThatisnotHair]

This why predictions from your belief is the only thing that required not reasons or proofs which anyone can make up 4:01

[macsnafu]

I'm not clear on how infinitism supports belief. How is an infinite chain of reasoning even possible? It would seem inevitable that you would come to some kind of end, such as an empirical or a priori reason, or else you would end up with circular reasoning. After all, beliefs are not numbers, people have to engage in reasoning to come up with a reason.

On the other hand, a hybrid of foundationalism and coherentism probably comes closer to the truth. Some things have simple linear reasoning behind them, while other things rely upon a 'foundation' (bad joke) or web of interrelated beliefs that are complementary or mutually supportive.

[thatchinaboi]

The epistemic regress problem does not apply to all statements. I can think of a proposition that doesn't lead to the problem. 🙂

[arturoartu]

which program do you use to make these ?