Evidence And Justification:Evidentialism And Reconstruction In Epistemology

Since Plato, the basic logic of Western epistemology is that the analysis of propositional knowledge. Knowledge is defined as "Justified true belief. However, in1963, the American philosopher Gettier construct two counter-examples to refute the structure of the tripartite definition of traditional knowledge to prove that true, belief, and justification of these three principles do not necessarily lead to know. The key of the Gettier problem is:How should we understand the meaning of "justification"? Thus, following the definition of knowledge, the problem of justification stand out and become the core of the problem of epistemology. Around the knowledge justification, traditionally the two competing answers are Internalism and Externalism.Recent research in the theory of epistemology is mainly revolved around these two issues carried out for the understanding of justification; the other is Internalism and Externalism about justification. Internalism and Externalism about justification debate that contemporary mainstream theory of knowledge is still unable to effectively respond to skepticism questioned. Feldman and Conee is on the basis of the theoretical critique of mainstream justification formed Evidentialism. Evidentialism can not only be regarded as one approach to realize justification, but also to achieve or reach the conviction to be justified of the effective protection. Background on these issues constitutes the main content of chapters Ⅰ and Ⅱ.Next, I focus on the discussion of the Evidentialism which defenses of Internalism. The so-called Evidentialism, doxastic justification is determined by understanding the nature of the evidence about the beliefs. According to analyze Evidentialism, we have come to:(1) the cognitive significance of justification is;(2) justification involved in the affirmative, negative, propositional attitudes as well as outstanding;(3) the nature of the evidence depends entirely on the justification. Evidentialism as a defense of Internalism, provides us with a new perspective to re-examine the justification theory, but its own existence can not solve problems, Evidentialism does not on its core proposition to demonstrate, which include the following:firstly, the definition of the evidence; secondly, having evidence; thirdly, the evidence to support. Evidentialism has been refuted by the Externalism, which is most intense from Reliabilism of Goldman. Goldman holds that justification of the belief is produced by a reliable process. As justification of the problem description, Reliabilism faces the following three defects:(1) Goldman’s Reliabilism was confirmed as stressing that the "true" external condition at the beginning, and finally gradually turned to psychology to explain mode.(2) Reliabilism misstates the relationship between justification and truth. Reliabilism makes the link between justification and truth vested, and the fact alleged.(3) Based on understanding of the main process to reach its beliefs, reliabilism bypasses the perspective of the knowing subject. In my opinion, refuting by Reliabilism is unsuccessful, Reliabilism makes justification into an external concept, but in fact it is the concept of evidence.On the basis of response to these objections, I repair Evidentialism, and reconstruct Feldman and Conne’s theory of Evidentialism. Answer:(1) the definition of evidence;(2) having evidence;(3) supporting evidence. The concept of evidence is "as a guide to truth". In other words, something is evidence for p just in case it is a reliable sign, symptom, or mark of the truth of p. This is an appealing conception of evidence, which makes sense of the term’s use in many walks of life. In criminal law, it is plausible that what a court admits as evidence should be items that are reliable guides to truth, or signs of that for which they are taken to be evidence. Similarly, in science the reading of a gauge or instrument is evidence for a certain object’s having property F just in case the reading is a reliable indicator of the object’s possessing F.How to have evidence? In the fourth chapter, I focus on distinction between the propositional and doxastic justification. The present proposal, which explains propositional justification in terms of doxastic justification, builds on insights gained through a close examination of the orthodox view. It is important to realize that, without this theory of well-foundedness, evidentialism is an incomplete epistemological theory, for at least two reasons. First, doxastic justification is at least as important an epistemological notion as propositioanl justification. Second, and relatedly, a theory that does not accommodate doxastic justification will have little to say about knowledge:I may well believe a proposition that is justified for me, but if I believe it for some bad reason, that belief of mine will not amount to knowledge.In the last chapter, about the structure of supporting evidence, I give a detail argument. A person believes something at a certain time to justified, if justified, justification of the extent to which, depending on his evidence at that time relative to that belief, how good. In other words, the evidence is justification of the extent of the sub; justification with respect to time; justification on the cognitive subject, although it is not subjective; justification both of logic factors, and causal factors. And show that: justification has the nature of the three dimensions:support for independent reliability and comprehensiveness of the reason; Evidentialism standard is to show the truth.