Foundationalism
Foundationalism brilliantly permits knowledge expansion from the very first principles. All the same, Descartes is of the opinion that a complementary way is required to help in discovering the true original first principles. Descartes provides a method of doubt in exploring the subject here. He is of the conviction that everything should be demolished completely and begin again all together from the foundations. To construct knowledge, Descartes construes doubts which are skeptical as the basic tools of epistemic destruction.
Generally, Descartes gave an answer to skepticism, the most burning epistemological query. The argument according to Descartes is that we should begin by taking our subjective states of psychology taking into consideration our perception as the basis and later go ahead to give an argument towards the world in general. He also added that the events of the mind have no pertinent use to the things in the physical. Simply, Descartes foundationalism constitutes three things we begin with the obvious and that which we are sure of we can bring a justification of other ideas by construing them from the obvious ones then by combining the first two things, we get the most reasonable ideas.
Coherentism
On the other hand, coherentism does not agree to the soundness that is highlighted in the regression argument which makes an assumption that the validation of a proposition takes another kind of proposition. As held by such philosophers like Aristotle, the process of justification and validation of a proposition is a holistic process. A proposition is not justified as a part of an inferential reasoning chain. The justification comes as a result of the proposition joining together with a particular system of which it is part of.
The main censure which has faced coherentism is indeed the simplest state of the view point held by people with the truth in the theory of correspondence. This is a theory stating that the falsity or truth of a given statement is determined through the way the statement is pertinent to the world and whether it explains precisely that particular world. This is a clear indication that there is no obvious method through which a system of coherence can relate to anything that could exist out of its circles. It is therefore seen as though there is a likelihood of constructing a theory of coherence that does not really correspond to what indeed takes place in the real world. There is therefore a possibility of coming up with a system which is wholly coherent while at the same time being very false.
Foundationalism verses Coherentism
It is necessary for coherentism to give much details of what it refers to as a system being coherent. At least, there must be a logical consistency which coherence must include. It needs some level of integration of the different system components. This is because a system that has many explanations which are not related is not as coherent as one that makes use of a single explanation stating that, all other matters are equal. However, a theory having an explanation for a divergent phenomena making use of other explanations which are not related is not that coherent as that which uses a single explanation for the divergent phenomena.
From the look of things therefore, a foundationalist approach is somehow better than making use of a coherent system. It is good to first get wind of the obvious things and those that we are certain about. Foundationalists seem to have a more efficacious approach in explaining the knowledge about things. It is also sounds logical when justifying other things by looking at the way they relate with the more obvious ones. The construing process of the new things is a very logical approach in the justification of the knowledge about them. However, neither of these two has been accepted fully.
Ernest Sosas View on Foundationalism and Coherentism
The rival perception according to Sosa is that coherentism tries to overcome problems by signifying that instead of a hierarchy of convictions and beliefs, where some are inherently validated and some are justified through other beliefs, each and every belief is justified in a similar manner. This is in terms of their position and place or in terms of belief, a raft which is not the case in foundationalism pyramid (Sosa 1980). Sosa has offered readings in through epistemic or else intellectual values, general capacities in telling the truth from falsity or even to make the correct and right discriminations in a scope of relevant conditions.
The theory according to Sosa applies the reliability requirement to justification. Sosa is of the view that foundationalism has the two branches rationalism and empiricism. According to the rationalist, it is only a rational institution that can offer a secure foundation. Moreover, it is only deduction that can lead the way to establishing a new knowledge based on that foundation. Sosa claims that the knowledge model here is an axiomatic system where theorems come as a result of a reasonable deduction. Rationalists were therefore the logicists who made efforts to reduce all concepts in mathematics to axioms which are evident by themselves. On the other hand, empiricists according to Sosa accept both foundations as in the rational institution and the foundations based on sensory experience (1980). He regards them as unsuccessful in their efforts of reducing each and every substantial reality to sensory experience.
However, empiricism is more liberal compared to rationalism in that it acknowledges a wider foundation which is provided by the rational institution and also the sensory experience it admits to both inductive and deductive reasoning. All the same, this is not satisfactory according to Sosa. Sosa considers the knowledge earned through observation in the immediate surrounding without any instruments. Sosa says that this observational knowledge cannot be described simply by deduction or induction from what an individual could know by introspection of their sensory experience. Sosa is also of the opinion that induction through enumeration is not sufficient neither is the use of abductive inference.
In summary, Sosa says that foundational empiricism puts forward three ways for a conviction to comprise knowledge foundationally. These include the rational institution ones personal experience introspection and the direct observation of the immediate surroundings of everybody. As seen through Sosa, the rational institution has a problem where a person could be right in being compliant to a truth which is necessary even though they could be found guessing. This simply states that the individual does not know anything. Therefore, the problem is that an explanation is needed of what brings the difference between the beliefs constituting the rational institution from those which do not. This is in particular when both beliefs are true with apodictic need. Just being simple alone will not amount to our distinction because people will often see the same subject from different perspectives. Moreover, neither observation nor introspection is ever a source of crucial knowledge to be trusted.
According to Sosa, the criteria used for knowledge are all proposed giving reference to the necessary basic truths, sensory familiarities or surfaces which are objective. All of these according to Sosa enjoy their own particular character autonomously of what any individual could be found to believe in. When there is failure in such foundationalism, a lot of people may turn away from the presumed realism and move towards a notion of language or universal view or may be a conceptual plan as a thing that comprises reality. Sosa reflects back on Quine in drawing this conclusion. Quine has the conviction that reality is determined by science. Moreover, Sosa reviews Putnam who holds to the belief that reality is realized through language as well as thought the ideal if not a must the actual. However, Sosa says that these kinds of theories lack coherence (Sosa, 1980).
Sosa sa ys that some may not adopt the concept of antirealism but instead may turn to the concept of coherentism. This is because they are of the idea that confrontation that exists between the beliefs that we have and reality is ridiculous. By stating this argument, Sosa opens the doorway to coherentism which apparently is being offered as the more efficacious alternative. Sosa says that the distinguishing feature of the theory of coherence is the argument that nothing could be taken as the main reason for having full conviction in a belief. This is because the belief as described through the coherence theory must come through another one that already exists. Sosa continues to state that it is meaningless making use of a basis or validation source of another type. In the process of explaining this, Sosa refers to Rorty who has the conviction that there is nothing which counts as a validation not unless through giving reference to that which we have already adopted or accepted (Sosa, 1980). Moreover, the argument herein is that there is no path of going out of our beliefs, convictions and language in order to look for a kind of test except through coherence.
Evaluation of Sosas Approach
The approach and analysis given by Sosa concerning foundationalism and coherentism sounds somehow logical. What apparently is devastating according to Sosa is the conception of knowledge as an issue of a mere true conviction and belief that is justified argumentatively as seen in the aforesaid argument. If then people will think of validation of ideas as thus fundamentally argumentative, then it is required that a room be left for another method through which a belief can lead to the getting of knowledge leave alone it being consequently justified. A belief leading to knowledge by way of a particular process which is casual does not really count in the perceptions held by many people. The absolute confrontation of beliefs with reality as held in a foundationalist approach as perceived by Sosa through such philosophers like Rorty and Davidson does not find a real application. Sosa, in the review of foundationalism and coherentism has really highlighted the importance of giving much space of scrutinizing beliefs before they are justified to become authentic.
The question now remains can there be a version of either foundationalism or coherentism which responds to these objections If so, how might they be The answer to this question is YES. There is a method which can be applied to deal with the problems experienced in the foundationalist approach. This alternative method begins by identifying these challenges as follows first, something is lacking in a supporter believing an important truth that is complicated for him or her to understand it by merely having belief in it two, something is also lacking in the introspective conviction that the individual has visual familiarity of a dodecagon surface at a point where this shape is very complex in discrimination and identification through introspection lastly, something is also lacking in the belief through observation that somebody has a dodecagon surface prior to discrimination and identification merely be sight. Therefore, direct knowledge in foundationalism should be right not merely through accident but through a non- inferential faculty that enhances the creation of beliefs on the issue in question ensuring a soaring success ratio.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment