(January 2, 2011 at 6:53 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: You've quintessentially formulated your very own regress argument DvF.
The conclusion is not "I don't know" while considered intellectually honest, its not a position or valid response to the loop in reasoning since it provides no justification that is being sought after. Someone can easily ask "Why don't you know?" you reply with the statement "I don't know" and yet again one asks recursively "Why don't you know?", this exchange will go on endlessly. Even if you attempt to escape the regressive reasoning by begging the question like for example "Why not?" the argument will still seek an unattainable epistemic explanation and "Why, why not?" will be the response over and over again.
To beat the regress problem we must appreciate not all propositions require justification. I've read some acceptable responses in the form of infinitism, foundationalism, coherentism, foundherentism and pragmatism. If you tell me for instance that you're an agnostic atheist I may either accept that at face-value or ask varying questions but at an important juncture we will eventually agree to disagree or reach an understanding where you will have satisfied my enquiry beyond a reasonable doubt, its an approach from common sense, any further debate on the subject matter after that is as counterintuitive as it is pointless.
Any argument can be beaten by a constant stream of "why?"
