Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Foundational Justification

Michael Huemer argues for the following principle:

Phenomenal Conservativism (PC): If it seems to S as if P, then S thereby has at least prima facie justification for believing that P.

So if it seems to me as if my coffee mug is on my desk in front of me, then I thereby am at least prima facie justified in believing that my mug is on my desk. (The phrase 'prima facie' means something like upon first sight or it initially appears as if.) In other words, I can typically trust my perceptions in rendering my beliefs about my environment justified.

So he thinks that it's legitimate to accept things as they appear. As he put it, "... appearances are presumed true, until proven false."

Do you think he's right about this? Should we be phenomenal conservatives and hold that PC is true?

1 comment:

Joe Burns said...

This concept of phenomenal conservativism is very interesting and thought provoking. Until now, I have never been exposed to this concept but after reading the blog I have established some thoughts and conclusions. I think that the effectiveness of this theory varies based on the situation at hand. In the example provided which states "if it seems to me as if my coffee mug is on my desk in front of me, then I thereby am at least prima facie justified in believing that my mug is on my desk," it appears as if Huemers principle is correct, and that it would be appropriate to act as a phenomenal conservative. However, after a deeper consideration of this principle, it can be concluded that things should not always be accepted as true as they initially appear to be. Let me give an example (in comparison to the practical coffee cup example) of when we should not be phenomenal conservatives. When an individual or magician for that matter performs a "magic trick" with a deck of cards, or cuts someone in half and that person still lives, would it be correct or appropriate of us to act as a phenomenal conservative and accept the action as true until it is proven false? I say no, we should not. In a practical case such as this or in a similar case of morality, the situation is deserving of a deeper analysis. What I am trying to suggest is that, for example in the card trick example, the person observing the act should investigate and find out how the magician was able to make the trick appear to be real. The same investigation should be performed in cases of morality. In conclusion I find Huemers argument to be dependent on the situation and that it does not always hold true.
Joe Burns