HOME TheInfoList.com
Providing Lists of Related Topics to Help You Find Great Stuff
[::MainTopicLength::#1500] [::ListTopicLength::#1000] [::ListLength::#15] [::ListAdRepeat::#3]

Theory Of Justification
Related concepts and fundamentals:Agnosticism Epistemology Presupposition Probabilityv t e Theory
Theory
of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason.Contents1 Subjects 2 Explanations 3 As normative activity 4 Theories 5 Justifiers5.1 Commonly used justifiers6 Criticisms 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 External linksSubjects[edit] Justification focuses on beliefs
[...More...]

"Theory Of Justification" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Autonomy
In development or moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy[1] is the capacity to make an informed, un-coerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing. Autonomy can also be defined from human resource perspective and it means a level of discretion granted to an employee in his or her work.[2] In such cases, autonomy is known to bring some sense of job satisfaction among the employees. Autonomy is a term that is also widely used and in the field of medicine
[...More...]

"Autonomy" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Reasoning
Reason
Reason
is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.[2] Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality. Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally through argument.[3] Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning (forms associated with the strict sense): deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning; and other modes of reasoning considered more informal, such as intuitive reasoning and verbal reasoning
[...More...]

"Reasoning" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Meno
Meno
Meno
(/ˈmiːnoʊ/; Greek: Μένων) is a Socratic dialogue
Socratic dialogue
written by Plato
Plato
(Steph. 70–100). It appears to attempt to determine the definition of virtue, or arete, meaning virtue in general, rather than particular virtues, such as justice or temperance. The first part of the work is written in the Socratic dialectical style and Meno
Meno
is reduced to confusion or aporia
[...More...]

"Meno" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Rationality
Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason.[1][2] Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy,[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science. To determine what behavior is the most rational, one needs to make several key assumptions, and also needs a quantifiable formulation[dubious – discuss] of the problem. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in all information that is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies
[...More...]

"Rationality" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Proposition
The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary analytic philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other "propositional attitudes" (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of declarative sentences. Propositions are the sharable objects of attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity
[...More...]

"Proposition" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Jonathan Kvanvig
Jonathan Lee Kvanvig (born December 7, 1954) is Professor of Philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis.[1] Kvanvig has published extensively in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of religion, logic, and philosophy of language. Some of his books include Rationality and Reflection, The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding, and The Problem of Hell
Hell
(published 1993), which debates Hell
Hell
in a modern theological and philosophical way.[2] He is the owner and administrator of the blog Certain Doubts, which covers topics related to epistemology.[3] Selected bibliography[edit]Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, ed., Volume 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
[...More...]

"Jonathan Kvanvig" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Argument
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.[1][2] The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (variously propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science. In a typical deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction,
[...More...]

"Argument" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Deontic Logic
Deontic logic is the field of philosophical logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts. Typically, a deontic logic uses OA to mean it is obligatory that A, (or it ought to be (the case) that A), and PA to mean it is permitted (or permissible) that A. The term deontic is derived from the Ancient Greek
Ancient Greek
δέον déon (gen.: δέοντος déontos), meaning "that which is binding or proper."Contents1 Standard deontic logic 2 Dyadic deontic logic 3 Other variations 4 History4.1 Early deontic logic 4.2 Mally's first deontic logic and von Wright's first plausible deontic logic5 Jørgensen's dilemma 6 See also 7 Notes 8 Bibliography 9 External linksStandard deontic logic[edit] In von Wright's first system, obligatoriness and permissibility were treated as features of acts
[...More...]

"Deontic Logic" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Norm (philosophy)
Norms are concepts (sentences) of practical import, oriented to effecting an action, rather than conceptual abstractions that describe, explain, and express. Normative sentences imply "ought-to" types of statements and assertions, in distinction to sentences that provide "is" types of statements and assertions. Common normative sentences include commands, permissions, and prohibitions; common normative abstract concepts include sincerity, justification, and honesty. A popular account of norms describes them as reasons to take action, to believe, and to feel.Contents1 Types of norms 2 Major characteristics 3 See also 4 Further readingTypes of norms[edit] Orders and permissions express norms. Such norm sentences do not describe how the world is, they rather prescribe how the world should be. Imperative sentences are the most obvious way to express norms, but declarative sentences also may be norms, as is the case with laws or 'principles'
[...More...]

"Norm (philosophy)" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Externalism
Externalism is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which argues that the conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain), but also what occurs or exists outside the subject. It is contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges from neural activity alone. Externalism is a belief that the mind is not just the brain or functions of the brain. There are different versions of externalism based on different beliefs about what the mind is taken to be.[1] Externalism stresses factors external to the nervous system. At one extreme, the mind could possibly depend on external factors. At the opposite extreme, the mind necessarily depends on external factors
[...More...]

"Externalism" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Testimony
In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.Contents1 Etymology 2 Law 3 Religion3.1 Types4 Literature 5 Philosophy 6 See also 7 ReferencesEtymology[edit]Look up testimony in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.The words "testimony" and "testify" both derive from the Latin
Latin
word testis, referring to the notion of a disinterested third-party witness.[1][2] Law[edit] In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. To be admissible in court and for maximum reliability and validity, written testimony is usually witnessed by one or more persons who swear or affirm its authenticity also under penalty of perjury
[...More...]

"Testimony" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Susan Haack
Susan Haack
Susan Haack
(born 1945) is Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami. She has written on logic, the philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics. Her pragmatism follows that of Charles Sanders Peirce.Contents1 Career 2 Ideas 3 Memberships 4 Selected writings 5 References 6 Sources 7 External linksCareer[edit] Haack is a graduate of the University of Oxford
University of Oxford
and the University of Cambridge (B.A., M.A., B.Phil, Oxford; Ph.D., Cambridge). She was elected into Phi Beta Kappa
Phi Beta Kappa
as an honorary member. At Oxford, she studied at St. Hilda's College, where her first philosophy teacher was Jean Austin, the widow of J. L. Austin
[...More...]

"Susan Haack" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

picture info

Epistemological Skepticism
For a more general discussion of skepticism, please look at: Skepticism Philosophical skepticism
Philosophical skepticism
(UK spelling scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a philosophical school of thought that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge
[...More...]

"Epistemological Skepticism" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Evidentialism
For philosophers Richard Feldman and Earl Conee, evidentialism is the strongest argument for justification because it identifies the primary notion of epistemic justification. They argue that if a person's attitude towards a proposition fits their evidence, then their doxastic attitude for that proposition is epistemically justified. Feldman and Conee offer the following argument for evidentialism as an epistemic justification: (EJ) Doxastic attitude D toward proposition p is epistemically justified for S at t if and only if having D toward p fits the evidence. For Feldman and Conee a person's doxastic attitude is justified if it fits their evidence. EJ is meant to show the idea that justification is characteristically epistemic. This idea makes justification dependent on evidence. Feldman and Conee believe that because objections to EJ have become so prominent their defense for it is appropriate
[...More...]

"Evidentialism" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo

Negation
In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being true when p is false, and false when p is true. Negation is thus a unary (single-argument) logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on notions, propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity and vice versa
[...More...]

"Negation" on:
Wikipedia
Google
Yahoo
.