basicality

We call this kind of basicality ˜doxastic™ because it makes basicality a function of how your doxastic system (your belief system) is structured.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

So the regress argument, if it were sound, would merely show that there must be doxastic basicality.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

One way of doing this would be to advocate independence foundationalism, which adopts the epistemic conception of basicality and views it as a matter of brute necessity that perception is a source of justification.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

The compromise position, then, may be characterized as follows: it allows for doxastic basicality; it does not allow for epistemic basicality; it is inconsistent with doxastic coherentism; it qualifies as a version of coherentism, namely dependence coherentism.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

The result would be the following version of coherentism, which results from rejecting EB (the epistemic conception of basicality):

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

Above, we noted that how to think of basicality is not uncontroversial.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

Consequently, there are two corresponding ways of construing coherentism: as the denial of doxastic basicality or as the denial of epistemic basicality.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

Consider first coherentism as the denial of doxastic basicality:

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

Because of the way they conceive of basicality, they cannot say that perceptual experiences are a source of justification for you because you have a reason, R, for believing that they do.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005

Let us turn to the question of where the justification that attaches to (B) might come from, if we think of basicality as defined by DB.

Epistemology Steup, Matthias 2005