Theories of Justification:
Today: Foundationalism (Ch. 6)
Wednesday: Coheretism (Ch. 7)
Friday: Externalism & Reliablism (Ch. 8)-May go to next Monday
Monday: Exam 2 begins

Justification: turns belief into knowledge

Foundationalism: A belief is justified if it can be derived from a special class of self-justifying beliefs
-Foundationalism arose, in part, from Regress Problem which is: where does the justification stop? (it's like a child always asking why)
Pg 106,
Option 2:
Pojman says: requires an actually infinite set of beliefs to be justified--maybe it is only necessary to BE ABLE to proceed with justification to infinity and then we stop where it is practical. It all depends who we justify it to.

Option 1:
B--> A, but B is unjustified

Option 3:
Circular reasoning: C->B->A->C->B>A...
A is justified by B,
B justified by C,
C justified by A
Example:
A: I believe in the bible
B: God is inspired it.
C: Because I believe in the bible & the bible says God exists.
Coherentism says that if the circle is big enough, it provides justification.

Option 4:

Classical Foundationalism: properly basic beliefs are infallible, incorrigible, undoubtable, self-evident
Rationalists: logic & mathematics
Empiricist: above things which are "evident to the senses."
Basic Belief: something that is not based on any other belief (it is good to be happy, 2+2=4)
-Properly Basic --> justifiably not based on any other belief
-Basic but NOT properly basic belief: "Fidel Castro is a great man"
Moderate Foundationalism:
Falliblism: complex logical & mathematical truth and things evident to the senses can turn out to be false (cold being mistaken for heat {ch. 6})