(March 12, 2013 at 10:07 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I do not think they are flawed, my argument is quite simple: to have a justified belief, it is required that all beliefs that justify it must also be justified. I am a computer programmer by trade, we have a concept in computer programming called recursion, in which a function calls itself. In K=JTB, there is an element of recursion in which every single time K=JTB is assessed, each of the supporting ideas must be assessed. Have you ever written a computer program before? It is like that.
You're conflating belief and knowledge again.
(March 12, 2013 at 10:07 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I don't really think I am making an argument, per se, I think that is just the way that foundationalist epistemology works. Do you really think that you can have rational belief with some supporting elements unjustified?
I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that I don't have to justify my belief to you in order to hold that belief. For the record, I did justify my belief (by virtue of you not successfully convincing me that your argument had merit). I understand you disagree. It's a free country. Be wrong all you like.
