Talk:Evidentialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Andries, you added:
- In other words, evidentialism says that one shouldn't be certain about the truth of a proposition if one can't be certain of it and that one shouldn't doubt about its truth if the proposition has been proven to be true or untrue.
I wonder if this is part of the definition, or if it is some kind of conclusion. Putting this conclusion parallel to the definition makes it appear to be an attempt to say the same thing "in other words", which I'm not sure is accurate. Rather, it might more be correct to say,
- In other words, knowledge is only as sound as the evidence upon which it is founded.
What do you think? Does this summarize the point you were trying to express, sufficiently? Mkmcconn — 23:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Mkmcconn, that was how I had understood the definition of evidentialism but if you think it is inaccurate then please correct it. I added it because I don't like unnecessarily abstract definitions. Andries 23:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] First intallment of overhall.
I've corrected some major errors in this piece, but it still needs a heavy re-write which I intend to do piecemeal. Since Conee and Feldman are the principle defenders of the theory, I have put in their definition. I have put it in terms of belief rather doxastic attitudes because the latter will be quite foreign to most users. I have also put in a more intuitive description which should meet the expectations of an earlier commentator without sacrificing precision. I have started the bibliography and external links. I removed the mention of the basing relation because this has nothing to do with the notion of a justified belief. The basing relation is an ingredient added together with justification as part of the recipe for knowledge according to the standard view. I will add in relevant information on the basing relation later.
The regress argument section probably does not belong here at all since evidentialism and foundationalism are logically independent. I've added a clarificatory note for now, but I'll probably delete the whole thing later. http://www.trent.dougherty.net/Philosophy.htm
The sentence "Most evidentialists are foundationalists, but the two issues are logically independent" doesn't seem to belong. The section on the regress argument, as I understand it, explains that foundationalism is a favored response to the R.A. among many philosophers, and then says this: "At first glance, at least, the 'basic' beliefs of the foundationalist would appear to be counterexamples to the evidentialist's thesis, in that they are justified beliefs that are not rational because they are supported by deeper evidence." Evidentialism may be *logically* independent from foundationalism, but that doesn't seem relevant to the point being made, which is that the foundationalist's basic beliefs, at first glance, seem to be counter-examples to the evidentialist's thesis. Perhaps there's no contradiction in holding both F & E, but what we need here is an explanation of how the foundationalist's properly basic beliefs can be squared with evidentialism. --IHMPCS
[edit] The example about baseball is too American
Like many people, I dunno the rules of baseball. Is it easy to give another example? Then please do. Andries 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hitting a home run is good. I think that's all that's needed.
[edit] Clifford/James
Would it behoove this page to include something of william k. clifford and perhaps his oppponent william james as examles of evidential philosophy and criticisms of it? i think it might...unless they would belong on another page, i don't know.
