Properly Basic Beliefs

[elopez]

I was wondering what you all here think of this idea. For all those familiar with epistemology, a properly basic belief is one which does not need justification from another belief or proposition. Further, all other beliefs are justified by this basic belief. An example of a basic belief would be:

The hat is blue.

Our perceptual experience of this is not based on any further beliefs, according to this idea. My question is, do you find this to be true? Are there such things as properly basic beliefs? Can you provide an example?

It seems to me that the hat being blue is not basic, as it based on our further beliefs there are hats, and there exists a colour such as blue. Would this seem like an accurate objection to the idea of properly basic beliefs?

 

[juvenissun]

I was wondering what you all here think of this idea. For all those familiar with epistemology, a properly basic belief is one which does not need justification from another belief or proposition. Further, all other beliefs are justified by this basic belief. An example of a basic belief would be:

The hat is blue.

Our perceptual experience of this is not based on any further beliefs, according to this idea. My question is, do you find this to be true? Are there such things as properly basic beliefs? Can you provide an example?

It seems to me that the hat being blue is not basic, as it based on our further beliefs there are hats, and there exists a colour such as blue. Would this seem like an accurate objection to the idea of properly basic beliefs?

If both hat and blue are precisely defined, then this is a statement of a fact. You do not need something like "believe" in this example. It simply IS. I think that should be the nature of "basic believe", if this term is needed.

Another simple example is: I am happy. In this case, the "believe" is not basic at all. Because the "happy" can not be defined.

 

[elopez]

If both hat and blue are precisely defined, then this is a statement of a fact. You do not need something like "believe" in this example. It simply IS. I think that should be the nature of "basic believe", if this term is needed.

The purpose of a basic belief is to have a foundation of knowledge to start with. We start with a basic belief, and build upward, with non-basic beliefs. I think the standard would be too high saying basic beliefs should be statements of fact, since this is not so with a many of beliefs and is a rarity anyway.

 

[RC1970]

Are you looking for a foundational principle, such as the law of non-contradiction, or a maxim, such as "I think therefore I am"?

 

[durangodawood]

....It seems to me that the hat being blue is not basic, as it based on our further beliefs there are hats, and there exists a colour such as blue. Would this seem like an accurate objection to the idea of properly basic beliefs?

I dont think you need any beliefs to say the hat is blue. Its basic experience. You can argue about what it "really is" all day long. But your experience that the hat is blue requires nothing else.

 

[elopez]

But your experience that the hat is blue requires nothing else.

So is the objection iN the OP bad? How so?

It seems that if we were to make the claim that the hat is blue, we must also know what a hat is. Indeed, we would need to what colour is to know what blue is.

 

[elopez]

Are you looking for a foundational principle, such as the law of non-contradiction, or a maxim, such as "I think therefore I am"?

As I said earlier I think self evident truths are too high a standard to hold for proper basic beliefs. Most things are not so. And ought not to be expected to be such.

 

[Chany]

I was wondering what you all here think of this idea. For all those familiar with epistemology, a properly basic belief is one which does not need justification from another belief or proposition. Further, all other beliefs are justified by this basic belief. An example of a basic belief would be:

The hat is blue.

Our perceptual experience of this is not based on any further beliefs, according to this idea. My question is, do you find this to be true? Are there such things as properly basic beliefs? Can you provide an example?

It seems to me that the hat being blue is not basic, as it based on our further beliefs there are hats, and there exists a colour such as blue. Would this seem like an accurate objection to the idea of properly basic beliefs?

Properly basic beliefs are, traditionally, ones that do not need support: they are incorrigible or axiomatic in nature. They cannot really be denied. Depending on how far you go, some a priori statements can be seen as basic through reason. An example of what I would consider basic is the classic argument against hyper skepticism against all truth claims: the proposition "I am not omniscient". This statement is basic; it is so apparently true based upon the mere idea of epistemology that I do not know everything that I do not need to support it with any other propositions.

Others have dealt with the argument you presented. There might exists hats and there probably is some sense experience of what you call "blue". We do not know if you see any actual blue hats, but what we do know is basic is your qualia seeing a blue hat. You cannot deny your qualia. It is basic to you.

Curious question: did you think of this after reading Alvin Plantiga or did you get this from a different source? Because the example you provided sounds like something he would declare a basic belief. I don't know if that is a common way of looking at them. I wouldn't label that as basic as it rests on a bunch of other beliefs.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Daddy, whats a hat?

 

[juvenissun]

The purpose of a basic belief is to have a foundation of knowledge to start with. We start with a basic belief, and build upward, with non-basic beliefs. I think the standard would be too high saying basic beliefs should be statements of fact, since this is not so with a many of beliefs and is a rarity anyway.

Without facts laid as foundation, nothing can be built. We can not build anything on something we are not really sure about.

Alternatively, we can try to build a system based on a few fundamental assumptions. These assumptions should be recognized and can not be questioned. For example, one of this assumption is: God exists. If so (it is a basic belief and can not be questioned), then the next step would be the build-up of the contents of God. The problem for this type of basic belief is that people may directly question the basic belief (how do we know God exists?). In doing that, they violated the rule of the game. However, since the basic belief is only an assumption, the question is not appropriate, but is ultimately sound.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Without facts laid as foundation, nothing can be built. We can not build anything on something we are not really sure about.

Alternatively, we can try to build a system based on a few fundamental assumptions. These assumptions should be recognized and can not be questioned. For example, one of this assumption is: God exists. If so (it is a basic belief and can not be questioned), then the next step would be the build-up of the contents of God. The problem for this type of basic belief is that people may directly question the basic belief (how do we know God exists?). In doing that, they violated the rule of the game. However, since the basic belief is only an assumption, the question is not appropriate, but is ultimately sound.

Truth isn't a "game."

 

[juvenissun]

Truth isn't a "game."

If you are not serious about truth, for example, a religion, then question religion is only a game to you.

If you ARE serious about religion, then you should FIRST accept the basic belief, which is: God exists.
Are you willing to do that?

If you are only interested in scientific truth, then you should know that EVERY scientific research IS a game. (That is why the life of a scientist is so fun)

 

[Eudaimonist]

The hat is blue.

That strikes me as a poor basic belief. Any basic belief should be highly abstract (not rooted in one specific entity, such as a hat), and bonus points if it is implicit in any knowledge claim.

For instance:

- Something exists.
- Consciousness perceives what exists.
- Anything that exists has characteristics.

If you get too specific, you won't be stating anything properly basic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

Properly basic beliefs are, traditionally, ones that do not need support: they are incorrigible or axiomatic in nature. They cannot really be denied. Depending on how far you go, some a priori statements can be seen as basic through reason.

This seems more like classical foundationalism. Foundationalism requires that basic beliefs need not be supported by other beliefs, but there has been much talk about whether or not such beliefs really need to be incorrigible. This resulted in the branch of foundationalism known as experiential foundationalism, or even modest foundationalism. We are justified in believing our perceptual beliefs as our perceptual experience gives way to it. Here the need for incorrigibility is dropped, and we can just say we are justified less there is evidence of the contrary.

Depending on how far you go, some a priori statements can be seen as basic through reason.

Are there any others aside from the one you stated?

An example of what I would consider basic is the classic argument against hyper skepticism against all truth claims: the proposition "I am not omniscient". This statement is basic; it is so apparently true based upon the mere idea of epistemology that I do not know everything that I do not need to support it with any other propositions.

I think this is a good example. So what other beliefs from this could we derive? Those would be "non-basic."

did you think of this after reading Alvin Plantiga or did you get this from a different source?

A different source. I've read a little of Plantiga's ideas here and there, and plan and reading more of his work in the future. It seems as if that claim does rest on a bunch of other beliefs, but then again, so does the claim of not being omniscient. Does it not further rest on the fact there is an "I"? And also that there is a definition of omniscience?

 

[elopez]

Without facts laid as foundation, nothing can be built. We can not build anything on something we are not really sure about.

The belief in God, though, is not a fact. Nor is it self-evident. Would this then be one of the "few fundamental assumptions"? It seems so, which to me really says a basic belief doesn't need to be self-evident.

This is something I was curious about, whether or not we can call "God exists" a basic belief. If we are, again we have to refine how we are using the meaning of basic belief. If it is sound to question said statement itself it doesn't seem to be basic in any sense, even if we define basicality in a less restrictive way.

 

[elopez]

That strikes me as a poor basic belief.

Me too. Is it because it rests on further beliefs and propositions, such as what colour is?

Any basic belief should be highly abstract (not rooted in one specific entity, such as a hat), and bonus points if it is implicit in any knowledge claim.

For instance:

- Something exists.
- Consciousness perceives what exists.
- Anything that exists has characteristics.

If you get too specific, you won't be stating anything properly basic.

I see. Could we change the claim a little to something like, "The hat appears blue to me"? Would that not matter? That just seems like a consciousness perceiving something to exist. I almost feel like if we were too general there would be no basic beliefs.

Can youngive an example of what you would consider a basic belief?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see. Could we change the claim a little to something like, "The hat appears blue to me"? Would that not matter? That just seems like a consciousness perceiving something to exist. I almost feel like if we were too general there would be no basic beliefs.

Can youngive an example of what you would consider a basic belief?

This dress appears white and gold to me, yet I know that it isn't. Appearances can be misleading.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was wondering what you all here think of this idea.

It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo made up so that religious believers can ignore tough questions about their feelings that their god must be real and instead just pretend that they are unquestionably true.

 

[TheBarrd]

I exist.

I'm not sure you do, though....

 

[Eudaimonist]

Could we change the claim a little to something like, "The hat appears blue to me"? Would that not matter? That just seems like a consciousness perceiving something to exist. I almost feel like if we were too general there would be no basic beliefs.

That's such a contingent statement I hesitate to call it "properly basic". I think that generality is important.

Can you give an example of what you would consider a basic belief?

Sure, I gave you three examples in post #13.


eudaimonia,

Mark