Epistemic Justification is possible

I’d like to begin by thanking CoriMike for initiating this debate. I look forward to the stimulating debate that will proceed. Now, we’ll go through a brief overview of the primary thrust of my argument. In general, I will demonstrate that Munchhausen’s Trilemma (which will be abbreviated MT) fails to adequately demonstrate the resolution, viz., “justification is impossible”. We will show in two cases that either MT is self-refuting or that it fails to provide sufficient reason for our resolution (which is often taken as a corollary of MT).Munchhausen’s Trilemmahttp://en.wikipedia.org...Munchhausen’s Trilemma purports to show, by way of contraposition, that it is impossible to provide justification for a proposition. It proceeds as follows:Let p be some proposition. If p is justifiable then the justification of p is based on either(i) Infinite Regress(ii) Circular Reasoning(iii) Axiomatic ReasoningThat is to say, any argument which we will say justifies our proposition, must do so by dint of either an infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic reasoning. The Trilemma comes when the skeptic will assert that all three of these methods are problematic and therefore rejected. It follows by contraposition that p cannot be justified. We can say this with greater economy by giving a more formal rendering:p implies (R or C or A)where p is some justifiable proposition and R,C,A state that p is justifiable by infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic reasoning respectively. MT asserts ~R and ~ C and ~A since they are all problematic. By Demorgan’s Laws we get then that MT asserts ~(R or C or A). By contraposition, we get ~p. Thus, as a corollary, justification is impossible as there are no justifiable propositions. ~AWe begin our analysis by considering the reasoning extended by MT. So we agree with the implication proposed by MT. That is we agree that justification implies that either R or C or A. We will proceed in agreement with MT and reject R and C since MT claims they are problematic. More specifically, MT rejects that we can justify a proposition by means of an infinite regress or by circular reasoning. So we assert ~R and ~C. Now when we get to A if we proceed in agreement with MT we must assert ~A. That is we must assert that justification cannot proceed by axiomatic reasoning. Notice though that ~A is itself a proposition and its assertion requires justification. That is, ‘how do we know ~A’? Notice it’s impossible to know ~A by R or C, as we have already asserted ~R and ~C. So we cannot use circular reasoning or an infinite regress to justify our proposition ~A. So if we can justify our assertion ~A it would have to be by A. That is, if we wish to show that we know ~A, then the only way we can show this would by A as this is the only remaining method for justification. But then ~A implies A which is contradictory. That is, we are justifying our assertion ~A while assuming A is true. We hold then that, clearly, we do not know ~A. That is we can claim ~A is possible, but we cannot justify that claim. Notice if ~A is merely possible then it is not necessary. So A is also possible. ~pWe recall that MT shows that justification is impossible on the basis of an argument by contraposition. That is, when p implies q we get that ~q implies ~p where q is our statement (R or C or A). Since we have rejected R and C, MT reduces thuslyp implies ABut A is possible since ~A is not necessary. So we cannot assert ~A. So we cannot assert ~p. Thus p is possible. So it is not the case that p is impossible. And we refute the resolution thusly.RemarksI’d like to point out that this argument does not rely on justifications of the positions R or C or A. We could have just as easily chosen to reject any other combination of two. We are showing that MT fails to demonstrate that justification is impossible by shortcomings of the argument itself. Ultimately I think most arguments that extend from reasoning which rejects all modes of justification are self-refuting for reasons similar to what we witnessed here.