Proving an argument is one of the main questions in philosophy. There are several theories of justification that uses different approaches to our “belief system”. The aim of all theories was to find ways to justify truth. An entire philosophical movement tried to work out a strategy and universal philosophical methodology in order to find solutions for current philosophical problems. A branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge development and such notions as truth, belief and justification and its structure is called epistemology.
There are four basic theories in epistemology that raise the question of the structure of justification. They are infinitism (suggest a linear or infinite structure of justification), foundationalism (suggests a finite linear structure), coherent theory (the basis is a circular structure of justification) and skepticism (does not offer the structure of justification or, in other words, it is also called an empty structure of justification).
The two theories that are in confrontation are foundamentalism and skepticism. Those to theories tend to “argue each other” and block these arguments. In order to solve this problem, a proper analysis of foundamentalists and skepticism theories should be done through the comparison and analysis of their arguments.
There are several forms of skepticism. In the Western philosophy, skepticism is a theory that there is no any kind of certain knowledge. It is based on two principles: the first one says that one cannot be sure in his/her knowledge and there is not certain human knowledge; the second principle claims that all we know can only be “probably true” and one cannot be sure of anything.
According to Marcus Lammernant,” in contemporary analytical epistemology, skeptical problem is taken to be theoretical in nature. They are composed of skeptical argument for the impossibility of knowledge or justified belief” (Greco 9). In other words, skepticism is based on a doubt. For, example, if somebody is telling me about some issue, I can have my doubts that one’s arguments are true.
The main skeptical argument is that certain knowledge implies certainty, one cannot be certain of anything, consequently, one cannot know anything for sure. Thus, one can obtain certain knowledge only through doubt and testing. However, one should not confuse skepticism and nihilism. According to skeptical doubt, the truth is asserted and negotiated. Nihilists deny everything.
It can be said that skepticism presupposes a constant search of solution for certain dilemma. Skepticisms can even adopt other theories in order to find this solution, “Accordingly, he might eagerly evaluate alternative theories in an attempt to dispel skeptical doubt” (Lipkin 811). Skeptic relies on a principle of “inferential justification” (Fumerton 55) in order to support skepticism.
Foundationalism is a theory that at some degree tends to defeat skeptical theory. According to foundamentalistic theory, all our knowledge should be grounded for beliefs in order to represent this knowledge, “every justified belief owes its justification ultimately to some belief that is noninferentially justified” (Fumerton 56).
According to this theory, there are some basic beliefs and derived beliefs. Every assumption should be based on the other belief. There are also some beliefs that are more basic than others. The basic beliefs cannot be justified by some other beliefs, consequently, they can be called foundational. For example, if I know that I am a human and all people are mortal, then I am mortal too.
The basic knowledge is that all people are mortal. Thus, only statement that cannot be argued can be considered a foundational. Thus, foundationalism presupposes a certain structure of knowledge where every belief is based on other belief. So, there should be some universal premises that can guarantee good reasons for some other claims, however, these premises do not require other reasons to support them.
Thus, these premises can be considered to be “stopping points” for the argument. Foundationalism argues the infinite and circular structures of justification that promote the idea that reasoning can never justify anything. So, it uses the regress argument. Foundationalsim was argued for its statement about basic beliefs. There were some doubts whether this theory can really support the structure of knowledge and if there is a structure of knowledge.
The structure of justification and the argument that there are basic beliefs became an augmentative point between foundationalsim and skepticism. According to skepticism, a certain knowledge is impossible, consequently, there cannot be any basic knowledge or belief. In this, foundationalsim and skepticism are opposite. In practical usage, skepticism provides us with more possibility to argue our points of view.
Certainly, there can be certain knowledge that cannot be based on some basic beliefs. For example, some people believe in “parallel worlds”, there are certain theories that can probably provide evidence of existence of these worlds. However, there is no basic knowledge that one can base his/her arguments on. Using a foundationalists theory, one will not be able to prove his/her idea. However, if one uses skeptical methods of doubting and justification, one can support his/her idea.
Both of these theories deny each other. Skepticism claims that no statement is credible in fact, consequently, foundationalism is impossible. On the other hand, fountationalsim always tend to overcome skeptical theories. It shows that skepticism is wrong only if one can dispel the skeptical arguments and doubts.
There is an opinion that those two theories are “two sides of one coin”. The reason lies in the fact that skepticism uses a principle of inferential justification, at the same time, foundationalists use the same principle in order to promote classical foundationalism. So, skepticism can be treated as a form of the foundationalism. So, according to Lipkin:
“A person adopts foundationalism when he believes that there exist unrevisable principles upon which to rest everything truly believed and valued. Certainty and necessity often are associated with foundational statement” (876).
Nevertheless, foundationalist theory brings structure and order in knowledge and structure of reasons. It gives a clear understanding of what is truth and certainly. Skepticism does not give such a possibility. In foundationalism one statement should be based on one statement as well. In skepticism, one statement can be based on many other statements. This is an argument that gives a possibility to assume that foundationalism undermines the skeptical conclusion.
Epistemology deals with justification and knowledge structure. There are several theories that suggest their vision on these issues. However, there are two theories that are absolutely contrary in their arguments about justification.
Foundationalsim is based on assumption that all statement should be based on particular basic beliefs. In its turn, skepticism denies this assumption. Both of these theories undermine each other at some extend. Foundationalism gives structure and clarity and skepticism provides us with more freedom to support our arguments.
Works Cited
Greco, John. Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Fumerton, Richard A. Metaepistemology and skepticism. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.
Lipkin, Robert Justin. “Beyond Skepticism, Foundationalism and the New Fuzziness: The Role of Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Legal Theory” Cornell Law Review 75 (1990): 811-877. Web.