Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The core idea behind the epistemic approach is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. [9] [2] Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. [3]
Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not. For philosophers Richard Feldman and Earl Conee , evidentialism is the strongest argument for justification because it identifies the primary notion of epistemic justification.
Exceptionally, the case was heard by a bench of six judges. Willes J gave the decision of the court.. Curiously, much of the case was dedicated not to the double actionability rule for which it would later be cited, but to argument upon whether (i) a law that was retrospective in nature was repugnant to natural justice and (ii) whether the law was defective as a matter of procedure as the ...
Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief.
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who don't already accept it.
The invincible ignorance fallacy, [1] also known as argument by pigheadedness, [2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used ...
Further elaborating on Stokes' argument, philosopher David Godden argued that the claim that one is entitled to a view gives rise to certain obligations, such as the obligation to provide reasons for the view and to submit those reasons to contestation; Godden called these the principles of rational entitlement and rational responsibility, and ...
Consequentialist justifications of the state are philosophical arguments which contend that the state is justified by the good results it produces. The justification of the state is the source of legitimate authority for the state or government. Typically, a justification of the state explains why the state should exist, and what a legitimate ...