The Justification of Belief – CUET PG Philosophy – Notes

Introduction

In epistemology, the study of knowledge, a central question is: what turns a mere belief into knowledge? The traditional answer, dating back to Plato, is that knowledge is Justified True Belief (JTB). While truth is a condition about the world (a belief is true if it corresponds to reality) and belief is a mental state,justification is the crucial link between the two. Justification refers to the reasons, evidence, or support that a person has for holding a belief. It is the rational grounding that makes a belief non-accidental and worthy of being called knowledge. For instance, if you believe it will rain because you saw a detailed meteorological report, your belief is justified. If you believe it will rain simply because you guessed, and it happens to rain, your true belief is not knowledge because it lacks justification. The entire structure of our knowledge rests on how we understand and construct this process of justification.

The nature of justification itself, however, is a matter of intense philosophical debate. How are beliefs justified? What is the structure of this justification? Do some beliefs serve as ultimate foundations for others, or do all beliefs support each other in a web-like structure? These questions lead to major theories in epistemology, primarily Foundationalism and Coherentism, which offer competing models for the architecture of knowledge.

Justification of Knowledge: Competing Theories

The core issue in the justification of knowledge is the regress problem, also known as the Agrippan Trilemma. Suppose you make a claim, Р. Someone asks you why you believe P. You offer another belief, Q, as your reason. Then they ask why you believe Q. You offer belief R. This chain of “why?” questions can only end in one of three ways:

1. The chain goes on forever (an infinite regress).
2. The chain circles back on itself (circular reasoning).
3. The chain stops at a belief that is not itself justified by any other belief (a dogmatic assumption).

None of these options seems to provide a satisfactory ground for knowledge. An infinite chain never reaches a secure starting point. A circular chain is fallacious. And a dogmatic assumption is just an arbitrary belief. Foundationalism and Coherentism are direct responses to this trilemma.

Foundationalism: The Architectural Model of Knowledge

Foundationalism is the view that our knowledge is structured like a building. It has a foundation of basic beliefs that support a superstructure of non-basic beliefs. Foundationalists solve the regress problem by accepting the third option of the trilemma but arguing that the stopping points are not dogmatic or arbitrary. Instead, they are properly basic beliefs that are self-justified or directly justified by something other than another belief, such as experience.

• Basic Beliefs (The Foundation): These are beliefs that are not justified by other beliefs. They are non-inferential. Their justification comes directly from sources like sensory experience, introspection, or rational intuition. For example, the belief “I am in pain” or “I seem to see a red patch” could be considered basic.
• Non-Basic Beliefs (The Superstructure): These are all other beliefs, which are justified inferentially. They derive their justification from the basic beliefs through logical reasoning (deductive, inductive, or abductive). For example, the belief “There is a red ball in front of me” is inferred from the basic belief “I seem to see a red patch.”