Your theory of justification?

[reverendjeremiah]

Theists, Atheists and Whatever... What is your theory of Epistemic Justification? In other words: What do you think one must have in favour of their beliefs in order for them to be intellectually justified in believing that thing?

There is no way to avoid the human condition. Only humans are human. The Cosmos is NOT human. Therefore anything that makes the Cosmos, or non human things, species, etc., appear "human like" should be subject to the greatest scrutiny. Emotional bias can be apparent in many things that we consider knowledge because we are trapped, as an emotional being, within our five senses.

Because of that, I judge whatever is minimalistically materialistically mechanical to be intellectually justified, and everything else to be suspect of human bias. Even then, subjecting the minimal mechanical nature to a decent amount of skepticism is also a good quality.

[corndog36]

I would say; Conclusive, scientifically obtained, evidence.

[Anomalocaris]

Emotional bias can be apparent in many things that we consider knowledge because we are trapped, as an emotional being, within our five senses.

The senses are not systematically and inextricably tied to emotion, therefore our knowledge is not inextricably tied to emotion. We are too some degree trapped by our senses. But we are not necessarily trapped by our emotions.

[reverendjeremiah]

Emotional bias can be apparent in many things that we consider knowledge because we are trapped, as an emotional being, within our five senses.

The senses are not systematically and inextricably tied to emotion, therefore our knowledge is not inextricably tied to emotion. We are too some degree trapped by our senses. But we are not necessarily trapped by our emotions.

Oh..no no no..by no means did I mean that to sound like our senses were connected 100% to emotions. I agree, we can detect logic from our senses. I was merely stating that we are an emotional species trapped within our senses. Some humans are more emotional than others.

Forgive me. I was merely doing a quick post. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Thanks for making me clarify

[theVOID]

When available evidence suggests the probability of that thing being true is substantially greater than the sum of the probabilities of all of it's alternatives being true.

Sounds like a Bayesian to me Welcome to the club!

I know things by being aware of them. I don't know why I know or am aware of anything, in that sense I don't justify knowledge. Can you justify the premise that knowledge needs justification?

Circular, that's akin to "I know things by knowing them".

You must have some concept of what it takes for a belief to count a knowledge? If you present it then we can see whether it is circular, doesn't permit contradictory conclusions and immune from refutation by parallel.

And this thread isn't about knowledge, it's about justification. You cannot know something and be wrong about it, you can however be justified in believing something that turns out to be false, what matters in justification are the reasons for which you believe something, such as a tentative conclusion that may be false - The Big Crunch in cosmology was a belief that was justified and was also false, it was a belief that at a certain time was supported by the best available reasoning and evidence

That's assuming that knowledge can be justified. How can it? (epistemically).

Logical necessity is one, I don't believe there are others, so If something is not necessarily true I do not consider it knowledge, this is a 'rigid' definition of knowledge sure, but it's the only one I know of that is not flawed in some way. That is why Justification is far more important because justification is attainable in the vast majority of situations where knowledge is not, such as scientific conclusions.

I would look at all the different arguments for a belief and examine each of them to see if their is a greater evidence for it being true than otherwise. Then, I'll examine the arguments which are against it and weigh them next to the pro-arguments and compare the two sides to adjust my beliefs accordingly. That's my theory of epistemic justification in a nutshell. If I didn't follow this, then my beliefs would be nothing but blind faith (which I don't think it is) which means that I would believe them either because of my feelings or because I was told to do so.

That also seems Bayesian, informally though, do you want to present your evidence for Allah in this manner? And if we found flaw in your reasoning would you therefore concede that you are not justified in believing in him?

There is no way to avoid the human condition. Only humans are human. The Cosmos is NOT human. Therefore anything that makes the Cosmos, or non human things, species, etc., appear "human like" should be subject to the greatest scrutiny. Emotional bias can be apparent in many things that we consider knowledge because we are trapped, as an emotional being, within our five senses.

That is to say that we have no good reason to have an anthropomorphic view of the cosmos therefore every anthropomorphic view of the cosmos is false... Is that right?

If so it's a black swan fallacy, if not then what are you trying to say?

Because of that, I judge whatever is minimalistically materialistically mechanical to be intellectually justified, and everything else to be suspect of human bias. Even then, subjecting the minimal mechanical nature to a decent amount of skepticism is also a good quality.

What about contradictory materialist conclusions, such as MOND & Dark Matter? Something being materialist is by no means enough to be justified in believing it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Circular, that's akin to "I know things by knowing them".

Well, all I meant was that there are times I am aware of things. I have awareness, I am aware of this - I think therefore I am. Therefore there are times when I know of things. Because I don't see any difference between knowledge and awareness.

And my point was that I don't see how any of my knowledge can be justified. How can I know why am aware of things?

You must have some concept of what it takes for a belief to count a knowledge?

If I am aware of the thing that I believe in, then that belief counts as knowledge.

My above point isn't meant to justify itself, that would be circular reasoning. My above point is simply that we're either aware of something or we're not. And if we are, then it's knowledge. Maybe I can't know when I know something?

[theVOID]

Circular, that's akin to "I know things by knowing them".

Well, all I meant was that there are times I am aware of things. I have awareness, I am aware of this - I think therefore I am. Therefore there are times when I know of things. Because I don't see any difference between knowledge and awareness.

And the difference between assumed awareness and actual awareness are also present to the same extent that assumed knowledge and actual knowledge are, how do you determine that your awareness is genuine and not an illusion of your mind?

And my point was that I don't see how any of my knowledge can be justified. How can I know why am aware of things?

Knowledge isn't important here it clouds the issue at hand, let's just drop it and talk about justification, the topic of this thread.

You believe certain things for certain reasons, you disbelieve things that you do not find to have a certain level of reason behind them, you'd agree with that?

This level of reason is justification, propositions require a certain standard be met before we have positive belief in the proposition.

You must have some concept of what it takes for a belief to count a knowledge?

If I am aware of the thing that I believe in, then that belief counts as knowledge.

That is again completely circular, the same as saying "If I know what I believe then that counts as knowledge" you've entirely skipped the standards a belief has to meet for you to reasonably consider it knowledge.

Anyway, this isn't about knowledge, This exercise is about making sure that we are free from error and bias in our judgements about what we should and should not believe, all in the name of becoming more rational.

My above point isn't meant to justify itself, that would be circular reasoning. My above point is simply that we're either aware of something or we're not. And if we are, then it's knowledge. Maybe I can't know when I know something?

We can certainly know in some cases, I know that there are no square circles. Why? Because it's necessarily true. Do I know that evolution occurred? I don't think so. Am I justified in believing in evolution? Absolutely, it more than meets my standards of justification and I believe these standards to be self-consistent and immune from parallel refutation.

[Edwardo Piet]

And the difference between assumed awareness and actual awareness are also present to the same extent that assumed knowledge and actual knowledge are, how do you determine that your awareness is genuine and not an illusion of your mind?

I don't claim to be able to determine it. It depends on what I'm aware of. If I'm aware of an illusion then I'm aware of an illusion. If I am aware of reality then I'm aware of reality.

You believe certain things for certain reasons, you disbelieve things that you do not find to have a certain level of reason behind them, you'd agree with that?

Assuming cause and effect exists and applies to myself, I must believe things for reasons.

This level of reason is justification, propositions require a certain standard be met before we have positive belief in the proposition.

If the probability that I am right is over 50% I'd call that at least somewhat justified belief. And I'd call tautologies to be 100% justified to be believed in.

We can certainly know in some cases, I know that there are no square circles. Why? Because it's necessarily true.

That's assuming we know for sure what "square" and "circle" mean and thereby know that they are contradictory. How do we know that every time we heard of or read their definitions we weren't hallucinating and in fact "square" really means "black" and "circles" means "swans"?

But yes, seriously. The things that "square" and "circle" refer to means that "square circles" are necessarily impossible.

[tackattack]

@OP... Well I figured I'd take a crack at this and you can place whatever label you like Void.. you like that sort of thing, and I'm curious

I consider something justified if the sum of it's feasiblity and utility overcome the probabilities of it's alternatives
I consider something easible if available evidence suggests the probability of that thing being true, is logically consistant and rational
I define utility as indirect measurement of desire plus productivity balanced by conformation bias

I'm fairly tired but I think that sums it up fairly well. Poke away.

[theVOID]

Aside from your brining pragmatism into it, which is entirely different from epistemic justification, it works quite well.

You would say you believe in God because it is the explanation that is most likely true given the evidence? Or do you only believe after pragmatism is taken into account?