- Internalism and Externalism
- Internalism and Externalism - Quizzes
- The Implications of Internalism and Externalism for Foundationalism
The Implications of Internalism and Externalism for Foundationalism
| Description: This quiz will evaluate your understanding of the implications of internalism and externalism for foundationalism. | |
| Number of Questions: 14 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: epistemology foundationalism internalism externalism |
What is the central tenet of foundationalism?
-
Knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs.
-
Knowledge is acquired through experience.
-
Knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
-
Knowledge is subjective and relative to the individual.
Foundationalism holds that knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, which are beliefs that are known to be true without requiring any further justification.
How does internalism differ from externalism in epistemology?
-
Internalism claims that knowledge is based on subjective mental states, while externalism claims that knowledge is based on objective facts.
-
Internalism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs, while externalism claims that knowledge is justified by its correspondence to reality.
-
Internalism claims that knowledge is acquired through introspection, while externalism claims that knowledge is acquired through experience.
-
Internalism claims that knowledge is subjective and relative to the individual, while externalism claims that knowledge is objective and universal.
Internalism and externalism are two opposing views in epistemology that differ in their accounts of the nature of knowledge. Internalism claims that knowledge is based on subjective mental states, such as beliefs, experiences, and intuitions, while externalism claims that knowledge is based on objective facts that are independent of the mind.
What is the main argument against foundationalism?
-
The regress argument.
-
The coherence argument.
-
The skepticism argument.
-
The circularity argument.
The regress argument against foundationalism states that if knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, then those beliefs must themselves be justified by other beliefs, and so on, leading to an infinite regress of justification.
How does internalism respond to the regress argument?
-
By claiming that there are some beliefs that are self-evident and do not require further justification.
-
By claiming that the regress can be stopped at some point, such as with basic beliefs that are grounded in experience.
-
By claiming that the regress is not a problem, as long as there is a foundation of beliefs that are sufficiently justified.
-
By claiming that the regress can be avoided by appealing to non-doxastic sources of justification, such as intuitions or feelings.
Internalism responds to the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs that are self-evident and do not require further justification. These beliefs are often called 'basic beliefs' or 'foundational beliefs', and they are typically taken to be things like 'I exist' or '2+2=4'.
How does externalism respond to the regress argument?
-
By claiming that there is no need for a foundation of indubitable beliefs, as knowledge can be justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
-
By claiming that the regress can be stopped at some point, such as with beliefs that are grounded in experience.
-
By claiming that the regress is not a problem, as long as there is a foundation of beliefs that are sufficiently justified.
-
By claiming that the regress can be avoided by appealing to non-doxastic sources of justification, such as intuitions or feelings.
Externalism responds to the regress argument by claiming that there is no need for a foundation of indubitable beliefs. Instead, externalists argue that knowledge can be justified by its coherence with other beliefs. This means that a belief can be considered to be knowledge even if it is not based on any indubitable beliefs, as long as it is consistent with the rest of our beliefs.
What is the main argument for foundationalism?
-
The coherence argument.
-
The skepticism argument.
-
The circularity argument.
-
The regress argument.
The coherence argument for foundationalism states that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs. This means that a belief can be considered to be knowledge if it is consistent with the rest of our beliefs and if it helps to explain and organize our other beliefs.
How does foundationalism differ from coherentism?
-
Foundationalism claims that knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, while coherentism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
-
Foundationalism claims that knowledge is acquired through experience, while coherentism claims that knowledge is acquired through reason.
-
Foundationalism claims that knowledge is subjective and relative to the individual, while coherentism claims that knowledge is objective and universal.
-
Foundationalism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs, while coherentism claims that knowledge is justified by its correspondence to reality.
Foundationalism and coherentism are two opposing views in epistemology that differ in their accounts of the nature of knowledge. Foundationalism claims that knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, while coherentism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
What is the main argument against coherentism?
-
The regress argument.
-
The circularity argument.
-
The skepticism argument.
-
The coherence argument.
The circularity argument against coherentism states that if knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs, then those beliefs must themselves be justified by their coherence with other beliefs, and so on, leading to a circular justification.
How does coherentism respond to the circularity argument?
-
By claiming that the circularity is not a problem, as long as the beliefs are sufficiently coherent.
-
By claiming that the circularity can be broken by appealing to non-doxastic sources of justification, such as intuitions or feelings.
-
By claiming that the circularity is not a problem, as long as there is a foundation of beliefs that are sufficiently justified.
-
By claiming that the circularity can be stopped at some point, such as with beliefs that are grounded in experience.
Coherentism responds to the circularity argument by claiming that the circularity is not a problem, as long as the beliefs are sufficiently coherent. This means that a belief can be considered to be knowledge even if it is justified by other beliefs that are themselves justified by the first belief, as long as the overall system of beliefs is coherent.
What is the main argument for coherentism?
-
The regress argument.
-
The skepticism argument.
-
The coherence argument.
-
The circularity argument.
The coherence argument for coherentism states that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs. This means that a belief can be considered to be knowledge if it is consistent with the rest of our beliefs and if it helps to explain and organize our other beliefs.
How does coherentism differ from foundationalism?
-
Coherentism claims that knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, while foundationalism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
-
Coherentism claims that knowledge is acquired through experience, while foundationalism claims that knowledge is acquired through reason.
-
Coherentism claims that knowledge is subjective and relative to the individual, while foundationalism claims that knowledge is objective and universal.
-
Coherentism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs, while foundationalism claims that knowledge is justified by its correspondence to reality.
Coherentism and foundationalism are two opposing views in epistemology that differ in their accounts of the nature of knowledge. Coherentism claims that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs, while foundationalism claims that knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs.
What is the main argument against foundationalism?
-
The regress argument.
-
The coherence argument.
-
The skepticism argument.
-
The circularity argument.
The regress argument against foundationalism states that if knowledge is based on a foundation of indubitable beliefs, then those beliefs must themselves be justified by other beliefs, and so on, leading to an infinite regress of justification.
How does foundationalism respond to the regress argument?
-
By claiming that there are some beliefs that are self-evident and do not require further justification.
-
By claiming that the regress can be stopped at some point, such as with basic beliefs that are grounded in experience.
-
By claiming that the regress is not a problem, as long as there is a foundation of beliefs that are sufficiently justified.
-
By claiming that the regress can be avoided by appealing to non-doxastic sources of justification, such as intuitions or feelings.
Foundationalism responds to the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs that are self-evident and do not require further justification. These beliefs are often called 'basic beliefs' or 'foundational beliefs', and they are typically taken to be things like 'I exist' or '2+2=4'.
How does externalism respond to the regress argument?
-
By claiming that there is no need for a foundation of indubitable beliefs, as knowledge can be justified by its coherence with other beliefs.
-
By claiming that the regress can be stopped at some point, such as with beliefs that are grounded in experience.
-
By claiming that the regress is not a problem, as long as there is a foundation of beliefs that are sufficiently justified.
-
By claiming that the regress can be avoided by appealing to non-doxastic sources of justification, such as intuitions or feelings.
Externalism responds to the regress argument by claiming that there is no need for a foundation of indubitable beliefs. Instead, externalists argue that knowledge can be justified by its coherence with other beliefs. This means that a belief can be considered to be knowledge even if it is not based on any indubitable beliefs, as long as it is consistent with the rest of our beliefs.