Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
John Stuart Mill (1859) A Few Words on Non-Intervention at the Online Library of Liberty "A Few Words on Non-Intervention Archived 22 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine" from Foreign Policy Perspectives No. 8 ISSN 0267-6761 ISBN 0-948317-96-5 (An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance, 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN.)
Infinite regress. In epistemology, the regress argument is the argument that any proposition requires a justification.However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, resulting in infinite re
Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning , where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion ...
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.
Hispanic community. These policies include programs to improve English language skills, scholarships for students, mentoring activities, and policies to encourage enrollment in early childhood education programs, among others. On the other hand, there are the policies that do not focus on Hispanics per se, but that form part of
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
The argument runs thus: Galileo was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo. [5]