Epistemizing Potential

"Cogito Ergo Sum", translates into "I think, therefore I am"(Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy). This statement provides your conscience with evidence and facts to prove you exist, making you a reliable authority.  While at the same time giving you an example for two forms of defeat ultimately influencing epistemological systems. With this said, here are two definitions, factual and justificational defeat. We need to know these two definitions for the remainder of this post as they affect supported evidence in an epistemizing way.

Justificational Defeat (defeating beliefs with evidence)

d evidentially defeats S's justification for believing that p if and only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) S has also evidence e' for a proposition d that defeats e as evidence for p.

Factual Defeat (defeating beliefs with facts)

d factually defeats S's justification for believing that p if an only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) there is a proposition d such that d is true, S does not have evidence for d, and d defeats e as evidence for p.

Non-Epistemizing

 True belief is not knowledge when non-epistemizing justification occurs. Facts defeating a system of beliefs signifies this sort of defeat. When evidential defeat happens, a belief is defeated. Only factually defeating a system of beliefs allows a system to be known as non-epistemizing justification.

Epistemizing Potential

When an entire system of supported evidence is undefeated, meaning there is no more evidence or facts to defeat p. The system of true beliefs have epistemizing potential. This grants the system of beliefs to than turn into knowledge. 

When a system of elements can remain factually and justificationally undefeated we can say true beliefs have epistemizing potential, allowing us to know with confidence. Almost always we are not fully in a position to know p due to hidden facts, Socrates paradox knew only one thing, which was nothing. However, we do know Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" proved our existence as a thinking thing; resulting in a system of elements with epistemizing potential. 

* * *

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 199. Print.

The Usefulness of Supporting Evidence

Attention: All Reliable Authorities, 

Everyday a justified belief has the potential to form, remaining until you, someone, or some experience/event crushes said justified belief with supporting evidence. In our last post we expressed why you should believe in yourself as a reliable authority with a conscience; click here to read more. This post will cover propositions with the potential to defeat an argument by way of supporting evidence. One proposition can undermine, or contradict another proposition resulting in an evidential defeat, with this said, there is also a way to potentially restore defeated beliefs.

Evidentially Defeating

An evidential defeat occurs when a reliable authority such as yourself presents or experiences new evidence that defeats a justified belief (proposition), such as beliefs about the past and future. This is to say, that you can experience something that undermines or contradicts your previously justified belief about one's past or the predicted future. Something simple as a sporting event allows reliable authorities to form justified beliefs about the outcome of a game. 

Undermining

Unless a person justified their belief for a game to end in a tie. A game resulting in a tie is an example of an undermining defeater, because both teams didn't win or lose; they tied. Which in turn, doesn't prove or deny the reliable authority of a justified belief about the prediction of the game. This is to say, an undermining defeat occurs when a justified belief has a proposition (such as a tie) that doesn't prove or deny a justified belief (team A will win the game). On the other hand, a win or lose will affect the justified belief. 

Contradicting

Suppose then a reliable authority predicted team A will win the game, and they gave enough supporting evidence to justify their belief system. In order for the justified belief to remain, team A will have to win. If team A loses supporting evidence has been formed, namely the game resulted in team B winning the game. Defeating the reliable authorities justified belief, which was team A will win the game. This is to say, a contradictory defeat occurs when the justified belief (team A will win) has a proposition (team B won), making the justified belief (team A will win) false. Now, suppose there was a way to restore the belief, allowing team A to win. 

Restoring Beliefs

In a game this would be known as overtime, or a final play containing a penalty. For the purpose of this post we will stick with overtime. Furthermore, let's assume this is a game of... football. Consisting of overtime if and only if both teams ending score results in a tie. For example, the final score of a game was 35 points for team A and 35 points for team B. This will cause both teams to go into sudden death, meaning the score remains, with a few extra quarters, and the object of the game is to score first. Giving the team who scores first the right to say they won the game. If team B scores first than they win, but if team A scores first than they win. Restoring the reliable authorities justified belief in predicting (team A will win) the game. 

Conclusion

As you can see this is an example for evidential defeats by using undermining, and contradicting supporting evidence as a reliable authority can apply this to relationships regarding multiple reliable authorities about any given subject both positive and negative. This is just a simple example to expresses how a justified belief can be undermined and contradicted, as well as, restoring a defeated belief. If you have ever got into an argument with yourself or someone else, I am sure you have taken an approach similar to this, using supporting evidence for a given situation; click here to read more about supporting evidence. This approach is also used in almost every legal dispute, until a decision has been made by the judge or jury

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.

Loop Hole

A Loophole is an uncertainty or inability to deal with a situation in the law or a set of rules. 

There is a loophole for everything these days whether they are used or not, they exist. Unbeknownst to us until a situation is presented to figure it out. Whatever "it" may be a problem arises with truths, beliefs and justifications as conditions of knowledge. Gettier's problem states that the three conditions (truths, beliefs and justifications) are not sufficient for a JTB of knowledge; so let's examine theories for each one. 

The truth theories consist of three approaches correspondence, verificationism and pragmatism. All of which, fail for there own reasons dealing with each theories variables. Stemming from questions, experience and potential infinite's. 


Correspondence Theory:
P is true iff, it corresponds with the fact that P. This theory has a circular argument: what is a fact? and what does it take for a fact to correspond to belief. Moreover, a fact is hard to determine without mentioning the truths of the matter. 

Verificationism: 
P is true iff, it is an instance of (idealized) rational acceptability. Verificationism is hard to justify, typically leading to a false belief. Meaning this theory will be an uphill battle to preclude a belief to be possible. Mostly for the fact that each person dealing with P would have to form an opinion based on their education, experience and training. 

Pragmatism: 
P is true iff, it is useful. Pragmatism doesn't hold because it is easy to imagine true beliefs that are not useful at all. Therefore, true beliefs can fail to be useful, and useful beliefs can fail to be true.  

A belief is the attitude a person can have toward P a proposition. For example lets say P = God exists
On one side of the fence believer would be a Theist, in the sense that a theist would believe God exist forming the belief that P is true. The fence would be an Agnostic as judgement is suspended forming an indifferent belief. On the other side of the fence would be the disbeliever known as the Atheist will take P to be false. However, all of these believers are forming a belief to believe, disbelieve or suspend a belief.  Furthermore, occurent beliefs are also important to this matter as they are presently before our mind as a standing (3+3=6) or newly formed belief (I believe in behavior P's domino effect). These beliefs are justified in certain degrees, which we will delve into at a later time. 

Justification seems easy, but it can be a little tricky. The two forms are justified true beliefs (lucky truths) and unjustified true beliefs (lucky guess). A lucky truth is a true belief that is not a lucky guess. S's belief that P is a lucky guess iff, (i) P is true; (2) S believes that P; (3) S has no evidence that P is true. These forms of justification are tricky because evidence or reason has to be presented to convince others, including yourself. Also for the reason that, a belief can have the property of being completely justified without having to show or explain the belief's justification, or we have no idea how to explain a belief yet, the belief is still justified. i.e. reading a blog post and existing.

Making the truth theories, beliefs and justifications fail on every level. This is an under rated phenomenon that has metaphysically created loop holes for laws, knowledge and anything else attempting to prove a point.  

Mr. Gettier succeeded to note the problems with each condition and devised a solution that comes later in the book after further developing evidence for justification. 
Since, these three conditions will not suffice for knowledge to be a justified true belief. He had to solve a problem, that is to say, what kind of condition can prevent a true belief from being a lucky truth? 

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.