Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What are your personal views on the regress argument and its responses, and as far as you know, what are the most widely acknowledged schools of thought regarding the matter?

It sounds similar to the problem of inference, which imho means it is rendered little more than a curiosity in the face of modern statistical methods

IIRC the most famous response to the use of the regress argument was "drink this hemlock".

Well I'm sure there's one school of thought that rejects the idea that "nothing is true 'just because'". I tend to agree with that, any given speaker will eventually hit that wall.

I'm most inclined to side with James, it simply isn't practical outside of pure philosophy or cutting edge science. You should always apply the regress argument to some extent but you're much better off reaching a functional level of knowledge.

For example, down in the GDF I recently posted a thread about the difference between Kinetic Energy and Momentum. The answer I got was a useful one but I could have gone on to say "the formula for momentum makes sense but why does KE use v^2?" I didn't because that was not a degree of knowledge that is useful to me.

So yes, the regress argument is a good one. At any point you can ask yourself "why do I think this is true" or "why is this true" and either arrive at a more basic truth or realize your own lack of knowledge. However, the ability to do so forever as it claims is not of any use.

Hmm well before I begin would anybody be able to confirm whether or not all of this is correct:

1. Infinitism, Coherentism, and Foundherentism all essentially argue that knowledge is formed from an infinite justificatory series, Infinitism working under a linear infinite justificatory series, Coherentism working under a circular infinite justificatory series, and Foundherentism working under a not entirely circular infinite justificatory system but one that justifies itself from within nonetheless in a manner analogous to a crossword puzzle.

2. Foundationalism essentially argues that knowledge is formed from a justificatory series that begins with a foundational belief that cannot in itself be justified but simply accepted to be true.

3. The regress argument states that all beliefs have to be justifiable and by extension denies the existence of foundational beliefs, while at the same time denies the existence of infinite justificatory series.

Originally posted by YGOLOMETSIPE
Hmm well before I begin would anybody be able to confirm whether or not all of this is correct:

1. Infinitism, Coherentism, and Foundherentism all essentially argue that outcomes are formed from an infinite justificatory series, Infinitism working under a linear infinite justificatory series, Coherentism working under a circular infinite justificatory series, and Foundherentism working under a not entirely circular infinite justificatory system but one that justifies itself from within nonetheless in a manner analogous to a crossword puzzle.

2. Foundationalism essentially argues that outcomes are formed from a justificatory series that begins with a foundational belief that cannot in itself be justified but simply accepted to be true.

3. The regress argument states that all beliefs have to be justifiable and by extension denies the existence of foundational beliefs, while at the same time denies the existence of infinite justificatory series.

I'm going to assume you are the most read on this particular issue of those who frequent the philosophy forum. I did a quick wiki check (sym might be more informed than me), but we are really at your mercy here.

You are probably going to have to set the guidelines, rather than test our knowledge of pure philosophy. Give us your take and we can discuss it.

Originally posted by YGOLOMETSIPE
Hmm well before I begin would anybody be able to confirm whether or not all of this is correct:

1. Infinitism, Coherentism, and Foundherentism all essentially argue that knowledge is formed from an infinite justificatory series, Infinitism working under a linear infinite justificatory series, Coherentism working under a circular infinite justificatory series, and Foundherentism working under a not entirely circular infinite justificatory system but one that justifies itself from within nonetheless in a manner analogous to a crossword puzzle.

I've never heard of any of those.

Originally posted by YGOLOMETSIPE
2. Foundationalism essentially argues that knowledge is formed from a justificatory series that begins with a foundational belief that cannot in itself be justified but simply accepted to be true.

I believe so. Foundationalism assumes that there are bits of knowledge that are the foundation(!) of all of our knowledge and that they are self evident/tautological, thus they don't need to be proven.

Originally posted by YGOLOMETSIPE
3. The regress argument states that all beliefs have to be justifiable and by extension denies the existence of foundational beliefs, while at the same time denies the existence of infinite justificatory series.

I'm not aware of a form of the regression argument that denies the chain being infinite, but then I'm not a philosopher.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm going to assume you are the most read on this particular issue of those who frequent the philosophy forum. I did a quick wiki check (sym might be more informed than me), but we are really at your mercy here.

You are probably going to have to set the guidelines, rather than test our knowledge of pure philosophy. Give us your take and we can discuss it.

To this affect, KMC may not be your ideal place for this. Not that there isn't intelligent discourse, but the philosophy section lacks frequent posters and a dedicated community. Surely there's other places that would better facilitate your urge to discuss this.

And if not, yes, share your thoughts and we'll happily discuss it to the best of our ability.

Or he's a sock. I shoulda checked that first before engaging in what was probably just an attempt to waste our time.