英语论文网

(8)  X believes that, given Q, P is more likely than not.

But is it enough that X believes, given Q, P is more likely than not? (I.e. Is it enough that George believes that, given the light is on in Helen’s room, Helen is more likely at home than not?) Or must it also be the case that:

(9)  X is justified in believing that, given Q, P is more likely than not.

But then, in parallel with the steps (4) to (7) above, don’t we have to say that (9) is true, iff:

(10)                  X also believes that R

And:

(11)                  It is true that R

And

(12)  Given R, it is more likely the case that given Q, P is more likely than not.

To return to our worked example:

(8)  George believes that, given that the light is on in Helen’s room, it is more likely true than not that Helen is at home.

But George must be justified in the belief referred to in (new) (8). So we need to add:

(9)  George is justified in believing that, given that the light is on in Helen’s room, it is more likely than not that Helen is at home.

So we add (say):

(10)                  George believes that hardly ever does anyone go into Helen’s room except with Helen

And:

(11)                  It is true that, hardly ever does anyone go into Helen’s room except with Helen

And of course:

(12)                  Given that hardly ever does anyone go into Helen’s room except with Helen then, given that the light is on in Helen’s room, it is more likely than not that Helen is at home.

TASK 2: Can you see where all this is heading? And, if you can, do you see why there’s a problem.

Plainly, this move can be repeated again, and again, and again … To simplify, each step in the justificatory process invites us to make good on a further justificatory step, ad infinitum. If we have to be justified in a belief for it to be knowledge, then we have to be justified in that justification, but then of course we must be justified in our justification for that justification, and so on ad infinitum. Inevitably, we are off on an infinite regress.

Does this matter? It all depends. It depends on whether the infinite regress is vicious or not, i.e. on whether it comes back to bite you. Not every infinite regress is vicious. Consider:

(1)  Snow is white.

This entails:

(2)  It is true that snow is white.

[A proposition P entails a proposition Q iff it is logically impossible for P to be true and Q false, or in other words iff to affirm P while denying Q would be a contradictory position.]

But (2) in turn entails:

(3)  It is true that it is true that snow is white

This in turn entails:

(4)  It is true that it is true that it is true that snow is white

Which in turn … and so on, ad infinitum.

The infinite regress of truth, as just illustrated, is not vicious (sometimes i本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。