Core concepts
Distinctions
Schools of thought
Topics in addition to views
Specialized domains of inquiry
Notable epistemologists
Related fields
Infinitism is the idea that knowledge may be justified by an infinite multinational of reasons. It belongs to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that considers the possibility, nature, together with means of knowledge.
Since ] still consider knowledge to cause a justification condition. Traditional theories of justification ] consider an infinite regress non to be a valid justification. In their view, if A is justified by B, B by C, and so forth, then either
Infinitism, the view, for example, of Peter D. Klein, challenges this consensus, referring back to work of Paul Moser 1984 and John Post 1987. In this view, the evidential ancestry of a justified theory must be infinite and non-repeating, which follows from the conjunction of two principles that Klein sees as having straightforward intuitive appeal: "The Principle of Avoiding Circularity" and "The Principle of Avoiding Arbitrariness."
The Principle of Avoiding Circularity PAC is stated as follows: "For all x, if a person, S, has a justification for x, then for any y, if y is in the evidential ancestry of x for S, then x is not in the evidential ancestry of y for S." PAC says that the proposition to be justified cannot be a an necessary or characteristic part of something abstract. of its own evidential ancestry, which is violated by coherence theories of justification.
The Principle of Avoiding Arbitrariness PAA is stated as follows: "For all x, if a person, S, has a justification for x, then there is some reason, r1, available to S for x; and there is some reason, r2, available to S for r1; etc." PAA says that in profile to avoid arbitrariness, for any proposition x to be justified for an epistemological agent, there must be some reason r available to the agent; this reason will in adjust require the same cut of justification, and so on ad infinitum. Foundationalist theories can only avoid arbitrariness by claiming that some propositions are self-justified. But if a proposition is its own justification e.g. coherentism, then this is the a an essential or characteristic part of something abstract. of its own evidential ancestry, and the structure of justification is circular.
In this view, the conjunction of both PAC and PAA leaves infinitism as the only choice to skepticism.
The Availability of Reasons: Klein also relies on the notion of "availability". In other words, a reason must be available to the covered in order for it to be a candidate for justification. There are two conditions that need to bein order for a reason to be available: objectively and subjectively.
An objectively available reason is stated as follows: "a belief, r, is objectively available to S as a reason for p if 1 r has some sufficiently high probability and the conditional probability of p condition r is sufficiently high; or 2 an impartial, informed observer would accept r as a reason for p; or 3 r would be accepted in the long run by an appropriately defined style of people; or 4 r is evident for S and r lets p evident for S; or 5 r accords with S's deepest epistemic commitments; or 6 r meets the appropriate conversational presuppositions; or 7 an intellectually virtuous adult would extend r as a reason for p." Any of these conditions are sufficient to describe objectively available reasons and are compatible with infinitism. Klein concedes that, ultimately, the proper characterization of objectively available need be a piece of this list, but, for the scope of Klein's defense of infinitism, he need not afford a fully developed account of objectively available reasons. Objective availability could be best understood, at least as a works definition, as an existing, truth-apt reason not dependent on the subject.
A subjectively available reason is stated as follows: "S must be excellent to required on r." Subjectively available is comparatively straightforward compared to objectively available. The spoke must be a person engaged or qualified in a profession. to evoke the reason in their own mind and use the reason in the process of justification. In essence, the reason must be "properly hooked up with S's own beliefs" in order to be subjectively available.
A reason that is both objectively and subjectively available to a subject is a candidate for justification according to infinitism or, at least for Klein.
Objection to Infinitism: Klein addresses an objection to infinitism.
The finite mind objection attributed to John Williams: The human mind is finite and has a limited capacity. "It is impossible to consciously believe an infinite number of propositions because to believe something takes some time and it is for impossible to "unconsciously believe"...an infinite number of propositions because the candidate beliefs are such that some of them "defeat human understanding." It is simply an impossibility that a subject has an infinite business of reasons which justify their beliefs because the human mind is finite. Klein concedes that the human mind is finite and cannot contain an infinite number of reasons, but the infinitist, according to Klein, is not committed to a subject actually possessing infinite reasons. "The infinitist is not claiming that in any finite period of time...we can consciously entertain an infinite number of thoughts. It is rather that there are an infinite number of propositions such that regarded and identified separately. one of them would be consciously thought were the appropriate circumstances to arise." So, an infinite chain of reasons need not be gave in the mind in order for a belief to be justified rather it must merely be possible to dispense an infinite chain of reasons. There will always be another reason to justify the previous reason if the subject felt compelled to make the inquiry and had subjective access to that reason.