1. I'm not really arguing that any sort of justification is "needed". Mind you, I do believe that that it's good to have good reasons for believing things, and I also believe that if you want to have any hope of convincing another person of your ideas, then you should have come compelling reasons for them. However that's kinda beside the point. It's not really part of the main thesis of this post, and I didn't really make the case for why it's needed.
If anything, I made the case for the limits of evidence, when talking about the Ronald Cotton case, and also about how things can be true even in the absence of evidence. I were to write about this topic again I may even consider talking about how subconscious "hunches" are usually based on actual experience and knowledge, and why they actually should be taken seriously, even if you can't figure out how to explain them in English.
2. Even if I were arguing that, I'm not pretending that I invented any of these ideas. Many ideas very similar to these can be found as far back as Plato, and his Allegory of the cave. I'm just writing about it because it's important to me and I want to express these ideas in the way that I understand them.
>Needed for what? It isn't needed for belief, it is needed for reliably true belief.
I'm **not** arguing that it's needed.
>Good for what?
Justification is not the main thesis. I was just acknowledging that I do care about it, so that when I went on to describe how it was not my main thesis, you didn't get the wrong idea.
>Why isn't it good to build on the best of modern epistemology?
I didn't say that. You're the one who brought the topic up.
"What the evidence did was allow us to be certain that they were true"
So, you seem to have reinvented the idea of justification, that justification is needed in addition to truth and belief. It's a very o!s idea.
1. I'm not really arguing that any sort of justification is "needed". Mind you, I do believe that that it's good to have good reasons for believing things, and I also believe that if you want to have any hope of convincing another person of your ideas, then you should have come compelling reasons for them. However that's kinda beside the point. It's not really part of the main thesis of this post, and I didn't really make the case for why it's needed.
If anything, I made the case for the limits of evidence, when talking about the Ronald Cotton case, and also about how things can be true even in the absence of evidence. I were to write about this topic again I may even consider talking about how subconscious "hunches" are usually based on actual experience and knowledge, and why they actually should be taken seriously, even if you can't figure out how to explain them in English.
2. Even if I were arguing that, I'm not pretending that I invented any of these ideas. Many ideas very similar to these can be found as far back as Plato, and his Allegory of the cave. I'm just writing about it because it's important to me and I want to express these ideas in the way that I understand them.
> I'm not really arguing that any sort of justification is "needed".
Needed for what? It isn't needed for belief, it is needed for reliably true belief.
> Mind you, I do believe that that it's good to have good reasons for believing things,
Good for what?
> Many ideas very similar to these can be found as far back as Plato, and his Allegory of the cave.
Why isn't it good to build on the best of modern epistemology?
>Needed for what? It isn't needed for belief, it is needed for reliably true belief.
I'm **not** arguing that it's needed.
>Good for what?
Justification is not the main thesis. I was just acknowledging that I do care about it, so that when I went on to describe how it was not my main thesis, you didn't get the wrong idea.
>Why isn't it good to build on the best of modern epistemology?
I didn't say that. You're the one who brought the topic up.