A Point of Note on Justification (Extract from Campbell and Wilkinson)

by admin2015

October 26, 2011

There has been much trash written about justification by a number of students and text books alike. It is a plays a specific role in philosophy and can demonstrate a lack of understanding very quickly. Below is an extract taken from the Campbell and Wilkinson A2 book. It clarifies a number of points. Throughout the post I would like to discuss a few problems that I have come across with student answers.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, how we can properly say that we ‘know’ something. It permeates everything we study at AS and A2 as it is always in the background. This begins (for us) with Plato and Aristotle in the discussion of rationalism and empiricism and continues through Hume and Kant into our study of the science and religion debate. Justification is an area of epistemology.

Justification

Philosophy demands a high standard of proof. This is not necessarily the case in everyday life, for instance explaining to a three year old why they should go to bed at eight o’clock does not require the same level of justification as some of the deeper philosophical issues facing humanity (though parents of three year olds might beg to differ!). Justification is the grounds on which we can say that we truly ‘know’ something to be the case. When we make a claim to ‘know’ something then someone is within their rights to challenge our belief. They may ask ‘On what grounds do you believe that?’ or ‘Why should I accept that X is the case?’. In other words we would have to justify our knowledge or provide a justification for our belief.

There are a variety of different types of justification and problems associated with each type. Indeed some question whether it is possible to reach any justification at all. My justification might be God, my five senses, or the scientific method. I know that X is the case because I have seen it with my own eyes or because it passes a standard of scientific enquiry. However, there is no agreement as to what constitutes proper grounds for justification. The claim ‘…because the Bible tells me so.’ is not going to cut the mustard for a non-believer, in much the same way as the statement ‘…because science has proved it to be so.’ will not convince the evangelical fundamentalist.

However, students often use justification in the wrong context without any attempt to make their comments relevant. Some of the key distinctions are often mixed up or clearly misunderstood. They are the differences between realism, non-realism and anti-realism. This is not helped by many text books being wrong. The Campbell and Wilkinson extract below really helps to clear up this issue. Their advice is simple: ‘If in doubt, leave it out.’

The Realism, Non-Realism and Anti-realism Confusion

Text books and students alike often confuse non-realism and anti-realism assuming that the two are the same thing. They are very different and demonstrate quickly that the candidate is out of his or her depth and lacks the necessary understanding. The best way to understand the distinction I can think of would be an analogy. If we imagine that the terms theism, atheism and agnosticism were not about belief in God but were about belief in ‘the justification of knowledge’ this could help us understand the distinction.

If I were a ‘theist’, in our analogy, I would believe that justification is possible and so would be a ‘realist’. A person who holds a foundationalist approach to justification is a realist. There are a number of different foundational beliefs of which God would be one example, others might be our five senses or the scientific method.

If I were an ‘atheist’, in the analogy, I would believe that there were no grounds for ‘realism’ because there is no external justification possible. This would make me a ‘non-realist’. A coherence theory of justification would apply in this case. This is because the ‘truth’ of something is dependent on agreement between people. Wittgenstein’s language game theory is an example of this sort of justification. The grounds for justification rely on an interrelated set of beliefs. This is akin to Don Cuppit’s Sea of Faith movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith) which suggests that ‘God’ is not an objective reality or real in the traditional sense. This is where most students and text books appear to go wrong. They associate ‘non-realism’ with ‘anti-realism’.

Finally, if I were an ‘agnostic’ (in the truest definition: belief in God can be neither proved nor disproved), in the analogy, I would believe that it is not possible to know whether our justification is correct. It is not the denial in an objective reality (realism) or the claim that meaning can only be found in human agreement (non-realism) but the view that we cannot know whether we are justified in holding any beliefs. In one sense we are cut off from the ability to ‘know’ that our knowledge is justified. This idea is not dissimilar to G. E Moore’s claim that ‘Good’ is like yellow, in that it cannot be adequately defined. Moore’s suggestion is that in a very real way the traditional routes of knowledge cannot be used to discern goodness. It must be made VERY clear that G. E. Moore cannot be described as an anti-realist as he relies on intuitionism as his justification (which would be a foundational belief thus making him a realist). The anti-realist is agreeing with the first part of G. E Moore’s reasoning stating that there is no way of accessing justification.

The extract below explains in greater detail the different types of justificationism and gives a more eloquent academic description of the term justification. It is taken from the A2 book (purple). The AS book is excellent, as it each section of the text book discusses the key philosophical issues raised by that area of the specification, rather than perpetuating the myth found in many text books that knowing everything is enough to pass exams. Answers to essay questions should never be about telling the examiner everything you know. I cannot recommend these texts highly enough. Also, the dark red/brown book (published for American undergraduates) is an excellent book for teachers as it provides more detail in many places (it has a place by my beside along with the complete works of Plato and the basic works of Aristotle among others). They give students the tools to become independent philosopher and ff your students don’t have copies they are a must!