Is evidentialism justified?

[Stempy]

In this thread, "evidentialism" is defined to be the view that:

"Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p."[1]

The question for this thread is "Is evidentialism justified?" For if it is not, then it is simply an arbitrary criterion which we are at liberty to reject. Applying evidentialism to itself, we are only justified in believing that evidentialism is true if our evidence supports evidentialism. But do we have any evidence supporting evidentialism? I'm not aware of any (in fact, prima facie it doesn't even seem possible that there could be any), and so by evidentialism's own lights I am free to reject it.

A second question (if you agree that evidentialism is not justified) is this: is it possible to adapt the evidentialist thesis in such away that it doesn't have this self-defeating character?

A final tertiary question for those who say "no" to the second question is "Are there any criterion for epistemic justification that are not self-defeating?"

Stempy.

[1] Evidentialism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidentialism can't support itself so I don't see how it can be justified.

If we adapt evidentalism, then we are defining it differently and so not talking about the same thing.

I don't see how any belief can be justified without the infinite regress of the question begging fallacy.

I find some things more probable than others for inductive reasons based on my experience ("I think therefore I am"). Other than my own awareness and logic, things can, at best, only be induced and not deduced. It's all down to what I find plausible and outside logic I can't say I'm right.

[Stempy]

I don't see how any belief can be justified without the infinite regress of the question begging fallacy.

If only you would doubt your skepticism in the same way that you doubt every other belief, then you would see that this statement is equally without justification or indeed any merit whatsoever.

[Minimalist]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Stemp....for reminding me why I fucking HATE philosophy!!!!!!!!!!

[Edwardo Piet]

If only you would doubt your skepticism in the same way that you doubt every other belief, then you would see that this statement is equally without justification or indeed any merit whatsoever.

I don't expect justification because it leads to fallacy and I do doubt my skepticism, in the sense I question it (and I doubt my doubts all the time) : You are assuming I don't.

then you would see that this statement is equally without justification or indeed any merit whatsoever.

When an answer leads to an infinite regress, i.e. question begging, or when it leads to circular reasoning: That answer is going nowhere.

Some things are tautological. No, scrap that - ALL things are tautological. Things are themselves and never not themselves by definition: You can doubt that but then you're addressing something else. This is why I don't expect justification there. Logic itself must be right otherwise it's not logical and so not logic.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't see how any belief can be justified without the infinite regress of the question begging fallacy.

If only you would doubt your skepticism in the same way that you doubt every other belief, then you would see that this statement is equally without justification or indeed any merit whatsoever.

Indeed I doubt my skepticism about my skepticism so much that I no longer take my skepticism about my skepticism seriously.

It is truly amazing how much xtians will rack their little brains to find new insipidities to justify their bible based intellectual infantilism they call "faith"

[Stempy]

I don't expect justification because it leads to fallacy and I do doubt my skepticism, in the sense I question it (and I doubt my doubts all the time) : You are assuming I don't.

I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.

Take this business of "justification leading to a fallacy". In order to get to the conclusion that justification leads to an infinite regress, you have to ask "Why do you believe that?" at every stage of the argument. But that assumes that "Why do you believe that?" is a relevant question to ask. And by assuming it is a relevant question, you in turn assume that not being able to answer with reference to some other belief in some way affects the justification.

For example: A says that he believes he is seeing a tree. B says "Why do you believe that?" A has two responses: acknowledge the relevance of the question (in which case he must give some reason to trust his sight or some other such reason) or simply reply "I don't know why I believe that, but I don't need to know why I believe that in order to be justified in believing it. Why do you believe that I do need to know?"

Clearly, the question is relevant only if the justification of his belief depends on some other belief he has (e.g. that his sight is trustworthy). Whether that is a valid assumption in this case is not my point - my point is that in order for the question "Why do you believe that?" to be in any way relevant depends on that assumption, and the iterative skepticism you employ can just as easily be applied to the assumption itself.

Despite this, you have concluded that justification is impossible. But it is your argumentation, not the claim that justification is possible (and indeed actual), that begs the question.

ALL things are tautological.

I'm afraid that is hopeless gibberish. Tautologies are logical formulae that are true independent of the meaning of the symbols contained therein, so unless all things are logical formulae(!) that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.

And why isn't your observation an assumption?

Take this business of "justification leading to a fallacy". In order to get to the conclusion that justification leads to an infinite regress, you have to ask "Why do you believe that?" at every stage of the argument. But that assumes that "Why do you believe that?" is a relevant question to ask.

It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.

the iterative skepticism you employ can just as easily be applied to the assumption itself.

I can't justify my skepticism because to do that would contradict the skepticism itself. It's absurd to require justification for skepticism. I don't require justification for skepticism just as I don't need to know why I'm self-aware, I just know THAT I'm self-aware

I'm afraid that is hopeless gibberish. Tautologies are logical formulae that are true independent of the meaning of the symbols contained therein, so unless all things are logical formulae(!) that makes no sense whatsoever.

A tautology means something is what it is. Everything is what it is therefore everything is tautological. It's the only thing that isn't gibberish, actually. Anything that is not tautological is something that is not itself and is therefore impossible gibberish. Nothing is not itself. Everything is itself. "Everything is tautological" makes perfect sense.

[Stempy]

Indeed I doubt my skepticism about my skepticism so much that I no longer take my skepticism about my skepticism seriously.

That's nice for you.

It is truly amazing how much xtians will rack their little brains to find new insipidities to justify their bible based intellectual infantilism they call "faith"

Because of course no atheist philosopher has ever made a case against evidentialism or skepticism. Only dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads would resort to such a pitiful thing as logical argumentation rather than trivial rhetoric, name-calling and straw men.

[Edwardo Piet]

Because of course no atheist philosopher has ever made a case against evidentialism or skepticism.

Is that a baseless assumption?

Only dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads would resort to such a pitiful thing as logical argumentation rather than trivial rhetoric, name-calling and straw men.

Is that a baseless assumption?