Your theory of justification?

[theVOID]

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?

[Violet]

What do you mean by intellectually justified? I could have answered you until that point, and my answer may change based on what you consider that to be.

[theVOID]

As in a justification that is not pragmatic - You do not believe it because of some practical benefit (real or not) but because this belief has passed your epistemic evaluation of justification - The intellectual part was to affirm that there are no emotional of personal pragmatic ties to this evaluation, it is merely concerned with the truth - I was trying to explain it better to people who may not be so familiar with the terms in epistemology.

[Violet]

Ehhh... it's really hard to separate the emotional/pragmatic ties to our evaluations as to what is true and not. But given how strongly that changes the answer: I suppose their beliefs must be based on logic (which is to say that they are taken on a circular system of faith that seems to work exceedingly well on all counts).

I'm half tempted to answer that it isn't possible to hold a belief uninfluenced by emotion/pragmatism... but I somehow do not believe that is the answer you're looking for

[theVOID]

Ehhh... it's really hard to separate the emotional/pragmatic ties to our evaluations as to what is true and not. But given how strongly that changes the answer: I suppose their beliefs must be based on logic (which is to say that they are taken on a circular system of faith that seems to work exceedingly well on all counts).

I'm half tempted to answer that it isn't possible to hold a belief uninfluenced by emotion/pragmatism... but I somehow do not believe that is the answer you're looking for

The whole point in discussing them is to find flaws, Overcome our biases.

Pragmatism is irrelevant towards the truth, finding a belief useful does not necessitate it is true and thus to permit it's validity as a standard of evidence towards justification or knowledge is to permit a great many contradictory beliefs.

To have an emotional response to a proposition is also useless if you want to know the truth or be justified in believing a proposition to be true, emotional responses permit a great many contradictory conclusions so they are also irrelevant.

[Violet]

Pragmatism is irrelevant towards the truth, finding a belief useful does not necessitate it is true and thus to permit it's validity as a standard of evidence towards justification or knowledge is to permit a great many contradictory beliefs.

Agreed, however: it weighs upon what an individual thinks is true.

To have an emotional response to a proposition is also useless if you want to know the truth or be justified in believing a proposition to be true, emotional responses permit a great many contradictory conclusions so they are also irrelevant.

Agreed again, however again: emotions weigh heavily upon what an individual thinks is true.

My suggestion that it might not be possible to have a belief uninfluenced by emotion or pragmatism isn't based in what is true, but in the person themself. Forming an understanding of 'the truth' that is devoid of emotion, and which stops short of considering the usefulness/value of the thing: seems either far-fetched or very difficult to achieve. I am not disagreeing that truth sees no relevance in the value of this data or its impact upon one... i am skeptical that we can view 'truth' without attaching value to it or applying our emotional biases into it.

[theVOID]

Agreed, however: it weighs upon what an individual thinks is true.
Agreed again, however again: emotions weigh heavily upon what an individual thinks is true.

They are all biases, like I said, the point in discussing this is to find and remove biases.

My suggestion that it might not be possible to have a belief uninfluenced by emotion or pragmatism isn't based in what is true, but in the person themself.

It's entirely possible, there is logic that when sound and valid is neither contingent upon emotion or usefulness.

Forming an understanding of 'the truth' that is devoid of emotion, and which stops short of considering the usefulness/value of the thing: seems either far-fetched or very difficult to achieve. I am not disagreeing that truth sees no relevance in the value of this data or its impact upon one... i am skeptical that we can view 'truth' without attaching value to it or applying our emotional biases into it.

Because it's difficult to achieve is no reason not to try, an epistemology is essential if you want to be as consistent as possible in what propositions you do believe and what ones you don't and if you want to be setting standards for your beliefs that tend towards the truth - The best way to find this out is to find an epistemology that fits what we believe and then examine it to determine whether or not it's self-cconsistent, immune from parallel argument and passes epistemic defeaters.

We will all have biases and flaws somewhere along the way, the whole point of discussing epistemology is to find these biases and overcome them.

[Shell B]

Verifiable proof.

[theVOID]

Proof? Or evidence?

Are you saying you don't feel justified in believing anything without them?

[Shell B]

Proof? Or evidence?

Proof. Evidence is merely a precursor to proof.

Are you saying you don't feel justified in believing anything without them?

Not quite. If I have a good reason to believe that proof of something is forthcoming or obtainable, I will feel justified in believing something. However, my belief in that thing will not be complete, so to speak, until there is proof of that thing. In other words, I don't believe in aliens in the same way that I believe that turning the key in my ignition will start my truck. I believe in both, but my belief is different. As for the former, my belief is based on probability. However, I know that is not proof. Therefore, if someone argues the point, I don't feel justified in thinking them a lunatic (unless their argument is god, of course). As for the latter, I have seen it happen. I know how the mechanism works. It cannot be argued. Therefore, if someone argues the point, I find them to be daft.

(I hope that was clear. I slept three hours and feel like I might be speaking gibberish.)