Theory of justification

A reason or justification - the ancient Greek. Λόγον διδόναι ( logon didonai ), English:. Justification - is meant for a thesis in philosophy the statement of reasons. In strict logical form is called a proof. In the 20th century very prominent is the attempt to achieve justification by scientific explanation. A recent special case are arguments that can be brought in rational dialogue for approval. Attempts to justify that want to reach a final, irrefutable reason, were recently discussed mainly under the heading of final justification.

Definition of Terms

After the usual parlance, especially judgments and decisions can be justified. Can justify by Wolfgang Kuhlmann it be construed as a five -place predicate: A person justified the judgment or decision- E U with respect to the validity claim of G by the argument Z for the addressee B. The conclusion of a statement of reasons is subject to the following conditions:

The function of reasoning is often determined as a means to enable true opinions or correct decisions. On this view, it is criticized that statements or decisions by reasons not true or are more correct than they are. For reasons thus relates more to security and control. By providing us with greater certainty that a statement is true or an action is right.

Justifications done by recourse to anything other than to be justified. A distinction must be according to Kuhlmann justification by derivation and the reflexive justification ( by transcendental arguments).

The reasoning by derivation is the standard type of reasoning dar. It is when a problematic x ( judgment or decision) is ( deductively or inductively ) inferred by one or more unproblematic y. Distinction can be made between linear and kohärentistischen justifications. Linear justifications are distinguished by a justification direction: for a given y is intended to serve as a foundation for x and not vice versa. In kohärentistischen reasons the award on the grounds direction falls away: x is considered established if it can be understood as a node in a network of reciprocal relationships of several y.

For linear reasoning, it is assumed that there are already security regardless of justification by derivation ( in principles, basis sets, etc.). This is then "transported" by a derivative at the x to be justified. The power of reasoning is dependent on the knowledge of the available premises and of the reliability of the inference process. Linear justifications are epistemologically problematic insofar as their base can not be justified themselves useful by derivation to be not involved in the regress problem.

Contrast, coherentist justification carry not only already existing security, but also generate self- security. The more stable the network of reciprocal justification relations between proving statements about a subject area, the greater the security. The problem here, however, are the principles of coherence itself, designed to facilitate the mutual self- props of the statements, as they can not even be justified kohärentistisch.

Reflexive reasoning, in contrast to the other two types recital practically only used in philosophy to justify last principles. They are applicable only when the x has to be justified to a reflexive structure, ie also needs to be taken subjectively by the investigator to study to complete. The security created in the reflexive reasoning is not transported but created and designed to ensure their claim after absolute security. The main problem with this type of reasoning is by Kuhlmann that can reason with him very little substantive content and the hermeneutic method by which these can be further explicated, are not considered very reliable.

Epistemic justification

As epistemic justification is in epistemology understood a condition that needs to satisfy a true? Conviction to? For his knowledge. It draws on the classical definition of knowledge as justified and true opinion. However, an analysis of this concept of knowledge leads to problems, the best known are the counterexamples known as Gettier problems. Roughly speaking, justification designated it the present good reasons why a subject of knowledge has an opinion and with certainty believes in them. There are numerous approaches to complete the definition of justification, that the problems of knowledge concept be avoided. Here, externalist and internalist approaches may be distinguished. By naming the problems of Epistemological Fundamentalism the debate about the justification has taken a direction as to reject the claims of a hard externalism on a realistic awareness theoretical ultimate justification.

Argumentation Theoretical Approaches

Stephen Toulmin, one of the pioneers of argumentation theory, has developed a reasoning scheme in which a base connection ( the ' Warrant ', a kind of transition rule ) constitutes the actual argument in any argument. This transitional rule is the relationship between the premise ( Ground, Evidence, Data) and the conclusion ( claim).

In several directions of argumentation theory tries the deductive structure of the logic will expand with quasi logical inferences that are suitable for forming transitions in justifications. Christoph Lumer developed argumentation schemes that are defined by conditions of validity and indicated by conditions of adequacy. The truth needs are met by that practical reasoning is also a valid epistemic justification for a particular thesis; the epistemic justification and this thesis together then form a valid and adequate reasoning.

To escape the relativism with an explanation, it is suggested by Josef Kopperschmidt to enrich the theory of argumentation with the Universalisierungsansatz of Jürgen Habermas. The "Universal Auditorium " procure a conclusion the validity criterion "convincing".

For well- Harald Rapp is the justification principle is one of four principles of reasoning:

" Assertions have their orientation in content from justifications. Justifications are constructions which new theory of epistemic theory ( proven orientations ) is tied back. "

Reasoning in rational dialogue

The Good Reasons Approach ( position of the good reasons ) is a direction of moral philosophy in the Anglo -Saxon world is subordinate to, among others, the question of why one should be moral. Counter positivische and understandings emotivische a rational justification is trying to prove. These painters are Kurt Baier, Kai Nielsen, Marcus George Singer, Patrick H. Nowell -Smith, Paul W. Taylor and Stephen Toulmin.

From approaches to "reasonable advice" Wilhelm Kamlah, Paul Lorenzen and Oswald Schwemmer and the " ideal speech situation " in Jürgen Habermas Friedrich Kambartel developed properties for a justification in rational dialogue.

• Impartiality. Willingness to defer presupposed orientations.
• Informality. It will not occur Approval or rejection of acts which are due to constraints.
• Not persuasive. Commonality is not surreptitiously on the basis of argumentation weaknesses of some participants.

The success of a justification for voiced validity claims is linked to the implementation of such a rational dialogue.

Deductive reasoning

You can ask the reasons of a thesis into question and ask for the reasons. The statements used in this case to justify can also be questioned.

Although based many reasons such as the axioms of mathematics to match. The same applies to sentences that reflect an immediately accessible perception as " The thermometer in front of me currently shows more than 100 degrees Celsius ." About such a statement can be usually without problems an inter-subjective and lasting consensus produced by saying: " Convince yourself but with your own eyes of the truth of the statement! "

However, such statements are not indubitable, as Karl Popper in his critique of the concept of " base rates " (or " protocol sentences " ) has shown the positivists. One might doubt in the example that there is a thermometer. It might also be a hygrometer.

The question is whether you want to make the matching perceptions of several observers deemed sufficient justification. For this purpose, different positions are represented. A common position states: As long as there is no concrete reason to doubt the matching perceptions of individuals establish a solid basis for that build upon empirical theories.

In contrast, see representatives of fallibilism such as Hans Albert here an arbitrary termination on the grounds. Albert rejects the concept of justification as a whole, because it can not escape his view, the Münchhausen trilemma of circular reasoning, infinitem recourse or arbitrary termination. After Mittelstraß ' constructivist point of view again, it is unreasonable to demand an explanation of the reasoning basis, not only because this would result in the infinite regress or circular reasoning, but because the reasoning in " life-world production contexts is sound that your part of a theoretical basis, whether it be in form of an empirical physical or formal geometry (in the sense of Hilbert ) does not require. " Harald well Rapp sees a refutation of Albert 's argument is that" the whole scenario is completely abstract, ignoring the reality of [ ... ] thesis is founded and criticizing people and instead, an artificial modeling of scientific experimentation generalized. "

Rejection of justification concepts

The counter-position to the reasoning approach is not aimed at justification criticism ' ( a synthesis of skepticism and absolutism ), the allegations engages and which is mainly represented by some representatives of critical rationalism: WW Bartley, David Miller and Karl Popper. ( But not all proponents of critical rationalism provide radically against the strategy of justification, it is represented for example by John WN Watkins ). In their view there is no justification; if there were, it would be useless; and they also have nothing to do with reason.

The philosophers mentioned represent a view that the questions of truth and certainty and decidability or safety of the truth of statements differs sharply contrary to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge. As a final justification for it is regarded as unattainable, it focuses on the changing methods of design and criticism. It will be used in this approach no argumentative justifications. To maximize the criticizability he uses the design and evaluation of relatively critical alternatives to any proposed solution. It therefore complements to the theory of pluralism; the methodical process that offers this is a theory of comparison.

Bartley also called a third position, which he referred to as critical rationalism in a narrower sense, and which he attributes to Popper sozialphilosophischem work The Open Society and its Enemies. She gave up the grounds, but not to, not found on reasoning aimed Direction criticism '. Instead of relying on criteria and authority, they tried to describe it and to explicate.