What is your definition of justification?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Godless
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:16 pm

What is your definition of justification?

Post by Godless »

I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by bahman »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 5:34 pm
Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
If it's true, it's true, regardless of my, your, anyone's, everyone's justification. Also justifications can be poor, good, great, analytical (so pretty damn certain), confused and so on.

Justifications support - or are intended to but fail to to varying degrees - assertions and make us more likely to consider them true, depending on our opinions about justification.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
I saw this question over in The Philosophy Forum. You presented a series of pretty philosophically dense questions along with it. Probably wise to leave them out in this forum.

I'd say that your definition fits what I consider justification. Or at least seems to.

That's just one way to come at justification. IOW it doesn't really tell us any specifics or the metaposition on justification.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by iambiguous »

Can I get away with it?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:34 pm Can I get away with it?
That's actually not bad. I first read it as a joke. LIke someone managing to assert something, say in a philosophy forum, and no one manages to dissuade them or it works politically despite having no foundation, etc. Sort of a quip about humans asserting whatever.

But if I take it in a more general sense, I kinda like it.
Like believing it's fine to run out on a highway with a blindfold on....you probably can't get away with it. At least, not if you act on this belief.
But if you have beliefs that lead to actions and you get away with them (unscathed) there may well be merit to them.

Probably a lot of our beliefs are like this. We haven't gotten smacked yet for having them.

Sort of a Darwinian view of beliefs.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:51 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:34 pm Can I get away with it?
That's actually not bad. I first read it as a joke. LIke someone managing to assert something, say in a philosophy forum, and no one manages to dissuade them or it works politically despite having no foundation, etc. Sort of a quip about humans asserting whatever.

But if I take it in a more general sense, I kinda like it.
Like believing it's fine to run out on a highway with a blindfold on....you probably can't get away with it. At least, not if you act on this belief.
But if you have beliefs that lead to actions and you get away with them (unscathed) there may well be merit to them.

Probably a lot of our beliefs are like this. We haven't gotten smacked yet for having them.

Sort of a Darwinian view of beliefs.
Actually, it revolves more around, well, dasein.

Most men and women [the moral objectivists] are constrained by how they justify what they do. Why? Because they are convinced that there is a right way or a wrong way...a good way or a bad way...a rational way or an irrational way...a justified way or and unjustified way to behave. The "What Would Jesus Do?" Syndrome.

The moral nihilists, on the other hand, are generally more in sync with the "in the absence of God all things are permitted" school of thought. So, as long as they are able to rationalize any particular behavior as in their own best interest, they only have to be aware that others might not find it in their own best interest in turn. So, they have to be reasonably sure they can get away with it.

That's the trade-off. The moral objectivists get to feel comforted and consoled in believing they are doing the right thing. And for some, of course, that, in doing the right thing on this side of the grave, they are promised immortality and salvation on the other side of it. But that can then reduce them down to only so many options "here and now". That's always entailed in a "leap of faith". That's the wager.

Me, I'd loved to believe once again that moral objectivism is the real deal. Especially the "a God, the God, my God" rendition. My life would then have an essential meaning and purpose again. I'd no longer feel "fractured and fragmented". And oblivion would not be my fate for all the rest of eternity.

But how "for all practical purposes" can I ever be justified again in believing that?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:45 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:51 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:34 pm Can I get away with it?
That's actually not bad. I first read it as a joke. LIke someone managing to assert something, say in a philosophy forum, and no one manages to dissuade them or it works politically despite having no foundation, etc. Sort of a quip about humans asserting whatever.

But if I take it in a more general sense, I kinda like it.
Like believing it's fine to run out on a highway with a blindfold on....you probably can't get away with it. At least, not if you act on this belief.
But if you have beliefs that lead to actions and you get away with them (unscathed) there may well be merit to them.

Probably a lot of our beliefs are like this. We haven't gotten smacked yet for having them.

Sort of a Darwinian view of beliefs.
Actually, it revolves more around, well, dasein.

Most men and women [the moral objectivists] are constrained by how they justify what they do. Why? Because they are convinced that there is a right way or a wrong way...a good way or a bad way...a rational way or an irrational way...a justified way or and unjustified way to behave. The "What Would Jesus Do?" Syndrome.

The moral nihilists, on the other hand, are generally more in sync with the "in the absence of God all things are permitted" school of thought. So, as long as they are able to rationalize any particular behavior as in their own best interest, they only have to be aware that others might not find it in their own best interest in turn. So, they have to be reasonably sure they can get away with it.

That's the trade-off. The moral objectivists get to feel comforted and consoled in believing they are doing the right thing. And for some, of course, that, in doing the right thing on this side of the grave, they are promised immortality and salvation on the other side of it. But that can then reduce them down to only so many options "here and now". That's always entailed in a "leap of faith". That's the wager.

Me, I'd loved to believe once again that moral objectivism is the real deal. Especially the "a God, the God, my God" rendition. My life would then have an essential meaning and purpose again. I'd no longer feel "fractured and fragmented". And oblivion would not be my fate for all the rest of eternity.

But how "for all practical purposes" can I ever be justified again in believing that?
Oh, ok. Well, that's a bit of a tangent. At least, I would guess the OP writer is not thinking of moral realism vs. nihilism but epistemology in general. What justification leads to knowledge, is considered sufficient for knowledge and so on. Yes, there is a kind of subissue related to if there can be objective morals and how would we know them etc. But that's being argued in at least 10 threads recently. Peter Holms and Veritas and others are slugging each other around that issue.

I enjoyed the 'if one can get away with it epistemology' but this other thing could probably find a home on one of those threads since that's not what you meant here.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:51 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 5:34 pm
Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
If it's true, it's true, regardless of my, your, anyone's, everyone's justification.
Yes, but you need a justification to show what you believe is true.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:51 pm Also justifications can be poor, good, great, analytical (so pretty damn certain), confused and so on.
No. Justification cannot be all sorts of things you mentioned. You first believe in something. Your belief is either true or false. To show that your belief is true you need a justification. You are mixing the claim with justification.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:51 pm Justifications support - or are intended to but fail to to varying degrees - assertions and make us more likely to consider them true, depending on our opinions about justification.
No.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
What do 'you' ask 'us' what 'our' definition of 'justification' is, but then 'you' inform 'us' of how 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?

Also, what is the 'justification' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 1:11 am Yes, but you need a justification to show what you believe is true.
I agree. I was responding to...
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
My emphasis added. It doesn't make it true, but it aids in communication IF one wants others to agree. I tack also be used this way in relation to oneself.
But it doesn't change something from untrue to true. It can change how someone view an assertion or belief. I'm being fussy, but then sometimes I find when I am being fussy that people actually mean what is implied by their words.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:51 pm Also justifications can be poor, good, great, analytical (so pretty damn certain), confused and so on.
No
. Justification cannot be all sorts of things you mentioned. You first believe in something. Your belief is either true or false. To show that your belief is true you need a justification. You are mixing the claim with justification.[/quote]Actually no. A perfectly common phrase is 'weak justification'. This means someone has a claim/belief/assertion and they have justified it, but weakly. You can have any degree or strength of justification. You can have justification for belief X, but belief Y has been better justified somewhere else.

Justifications support - or are intended to but fail to to varying degrees - assertions and make us more likely to consider them true, depending on our opinions about justification.
No.
Ah, ha. So, you are saying all justification is of the same degree of quality. We cannot say that this justification is better than that one. Once we say something is justified, then it must be permanently true, I guess you mean. We cannot find later that there was a weakness in the justification. How odd. If two intelligent people each justify opposing or differing positions, one justification cannot be better than the other. Strange.
It would be interesting to see how this view of justification, this binary view (justified, not justified) would work in a discussion about coherentism vs. foundationalism.

And we can throw in some examples of how philosophers do often think in terms of degrees of justification....
From Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are other entries there that refer to degrees of justification.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/
Moreover, notice that we can alter the example slightly so that the agent does possess knowledge while at the same time having a weaker justification for what she believes (where strength of justification is again assessed in terms of the likelihood, given this justification, that the agent’s belief is true).
7. Weak and Strong Conceptions of Knowledge
Laurence BonJour argues that reflecting on the value of knowledge leads us to reject a prevailing trend in epistemology over the past several decades, namely, fallibilism, or what BonJour calls the “weak conception” of knowledge.

BonJour outlines four traditional assumptions about knowledge, understood as roughly justified true belief, which he “broadly” endorses (BonJour 2010: 58–9). First, knowledge is a “valuable and desirable cognitive state” indicative of “full cognitive success”. Any acceptable theory of knowledge must “make sense of” knowledge’s important value. Second, knowledge is “an all or nothing matter, not a matter of degree”. There is no such thing as degrees of knowing: either you know or you don’t. Third, epistemic justification comes in degrees, from weak to strong. Fourth, epistemic justification is essentially tied to “likelihood or probability of truth”, such that the strength of justification covaries with how likely it makes the truth of the belief in question
From the online Encyclopedia of justification
That is to say, one must have more than weak justification for thinking one’s apparent memory does report that p, whether or not this apparent memory is true.
And then if you google strong or weak justification, many philosophy articles come up along with references in universities and other academic sites/setting.

Of course, perhaps one can argue that just because some experts use these terms with degrees doesn't mean it's a good idea. I agree.

But I think it makes practical sense and pretty much any philosophical discussion or argument ends up pointing out weaknesses and strengths in the other person's justification for their position. Admittedly in Philosophy Now there is a lot of asserting presented as argument. IOW no real justificaiton, just proclaiming. But there are also many discussions of how good someone's justification is, even if it is not framed with precisely those words.

And most of us would agree that there are degrees of justification. Well, it worked once - which is not zero justification - to 25 research studies all showed signification correlation between X and Y, shows a range of degrees of justifications. There can be deductions that are very strong, since the premises are believed by both parties and the logic at least seems solid. Or weaker justifications that have good logic but one of the premises is more controversial. And so on.

It just seems like common sense, but also wise, to consider different justifications for beliefs to fall onto a range that includes stronger and weaker ones. Strong weak good bad poor... the particular adjectives are less important than the idea that one can yes, have some justification for believing in X, and in a crisis or for more trivial matters or where there is no risk of acting on this belief, enough justification to do so. While for other beliefs more justification would be preferable.

I think we all make judgments about whether justifications are good (enough) or not.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 7:17 am
bahman wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 1:11 am Yes, but you need a justification to show what you believe is true.
I agree. I was responding to...
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
My emphasis added. It doesn't make it true, but it aids in communication IF one wants others to agree. I tack also be used this way in relation to oneself.
But it doesn't change something from untrue to true. It can change how someone view an assertion or belief. I'm being fussy, but then sometimes I find when I am being fussy that people actually mean what is implied by their words.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:51 pm Also justifications can be poor, good, great, analytical (so pretty damn certain), confused and so on.
No
. Justification cannot be all sorts of things you mentioned. You first believe in something. Your belief is either true or false. To show that your belief is true you need a justification. You are mixing the claim with justification.
Actually no. A perfectly common phrase is 'weak justification'. This means someone has a claim/belief/assertion and they have justified it, but weakly. You can have any degree or strength of justification. You can have justification for belief X, but belief Y has been better justified somewhere else.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 7:17 am
Justifications support - or are intended to but fail to to varying degrees - assertions and make us more likely to consider them true, depending on our opinions about justification.
No.
Ah, ha. So, all justification is of the same degree of quality. We cannot say that this justification is better than another. Once we say something is justified, then it is permanently true. We cannot find later that there was a weakness in the justification. How odd. If two intelligent people each justify opposing or differing positions, one justification cannot be better than the other. Strange.
And here we have two examples of completely BACKWARDS looking and thinking, and, a completely DISTORTED view of 'justified'.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:54 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:45 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:51 pm That's actually not bad. I first read it as a joke. LIke someone managing to assert something, say in a philosophy forum, and no one manages to dissuade them or it works politically despite having no foundation, etc. Sort of a quip about humans asserting whatever.

But if I take it in a more general sense, I kinda like it.
Like believing it's fine to run out on a highway with a blindfold on....you probably can't get away with it. At least, not if you act on this belief.
But if you have beliefs that lead to actions and you get away with them (unscathed) there may well be merit to them.

Probably a lot of our beliefs are like this. We haven't gotten smacked yet for having them.

Sort of a Darwinian view of beliefs.
Actually, it revolves more around, well, dasein.

Most men and women [the moral objectivists] are constrained by how they justify what they do. Why? Because they are convinced that there is a right way or a wrong way...a good way or a bad way...a rational way or an irrational way...a justified way or and unjustified way to behave. The "What Would Jesus Do?" Syndrome.

The moral nihilists, on the other hand, are generally more in sync with the "in the absence of God all things are permitted" school of thought. So, as long as they are able to rationalize any particular behavior as in their own best interest, they only have to be aware that others might not find it in their own best interest in turn. So, they have to be reasonably sure they can get away with it.

That's the trade-off. The moral objectivists get to feel comforted and consoled in believing they are doing the right thing. And for some, of course, that, in doing the right thing on this side of the grave, they are promised immortality and salvation on the other side of it. But that can then reduce them down to only so many options "here and now". That's always entailed in a "leap of faith". That's the wager.

Me, I'd loved to believe once again that moral objectivism is the real deal. Especially the "a God, the God, my God" rendition. My life would then have an essential meaning and purpose again. I'd no longer feel "fractured and fragmented". And oblivion would not be my fate for all the rest of eternity.

But how "for all practical purposes" can I ever be justified again in believing that?
Oh, ok. Well, that's a bit of a tangent. At least, I would guess the OP writer is not thinking of moral realism vs. nihilism but epistemology in general. What justification leads to knowledge, is considered sufficient for knowledge and so on.
Well, as most here know, my aim is always to take definitions down out of the technical clouds and explore the manner in which they are pertinent to our day-to-day interactions with others.

And few things are more crucial there [at least to me] than the manner in which we justify our moral and political value judgments. Though, sure, if others prefer not to go there until we can first agree on what either can and cannot be known about justification epistemologically, that's fine.

If a consensus is reached here, then they can always bring that [the definitions] to bear on our interactions in the is/ought world.

Or not, of course.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Justification: to show that something is reasonable, right, or true.

To justify something is reasonable, right, true, factual, justification must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

The point is when truths are subjected or conditioned to a specific FSK, then it is independent of any individual's beliefs or opinion thus is objective [in degrees].

The FSK or FSR is comprised of a paradigm, conceptual Framework, Frames [social science]; The above must be completed with sound philosophical groundings.

A specific FSK will generate and support its specific truths, e.g. the Scientific FSK, the Legal FSK, Economic FSK, the Political FSK and so on support their respective truth-claims.

I have stated, at present Scientific FSK generated truths has the highest credibility, followed by the Mathematics FSK. The truths of other FSKs are in various degrees of credibility in relation to the Scientific FSK as the standard.

Where whatever is claimed as true but without justification to any FSK to assess their degree of credibility, then they are at best personal beliefs, opinions and judgments.

As such, on a matter of justification, the question to be asked is what type of truth leading to its specific FSK or FSR and an assessment of its credibility to generate confidence level.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 4:27 am Justification: to show that something is reasonable, right, or true.

To justify something is reasonable, right, true, factual, justification must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

The point is when truths are subjected or conditioned to a specific FSK, then it is independent of any individual's beliefs or opinion thus is objective [in degrees].

The FSK or FSR is comprised of a paradigm, conceptual Framework, Frames [social science]; The above must be completed with sound philosophical groundings.

A specific FSK will generate and support its specific truths, e.g. the Scientific FSK, the Legal FSK, Economic FSK, the Political FSK and so on support their respective truth-claims.

I have stated, at present Scientific FSK generated truths has the highest credibility, followed by the Mathematics FSK. The truths of other FSKs are in various degrees of credibility in relation to the Scientific FSK as the standard.

Where whatever is claimed as true but without justification to any FSK to assess their degree of credibility, then they are at best personal beliefs, opinions and judgments.

As such, on a matter of justification, the question to be asked is what type of truth leading to its specific FSK or FSR and an assessment of its credibility to generate confidence level.
So, what is the FSK that convinced you that the Scientific FSK had the highest credibility?
It can't be the scientific one, since that one has no way to compare FSKs.
It would seem like you have an FSK that is higher than the Scientific FSK since you are able to compare credibilities with it BUT did not use empirical research to compare FSKs.
Post Reply