نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار فلسفه دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Foundherentism, proposed by Susan Haack in her book Evidence and Inquiry, represents an attempt to combine the strengths of foundationalism and coherentism in epistemic justification. By critiquing both traditional approaches, Haack offers an alternative model in which the justification of beliefs depends both on experiential evidence and on coherence with the overall belief system. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine the theoretical foundations of foundherentism, along with its advantages and criticisms. The findings indicate that this theory offers several advantages, including transcending the traditional foundationalism-coherentism dichotomy, flexibility in accommodating new evidence, and the ability to explain the process of scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, serious criticisms have been raised against it: ambiguity regarding the role of experience and the risk of reduction to coherentism; the problem of epistemic circularity and possible reduction to weak foundationalism; vagueness in justification criteria and conflict resolution; and the insufficiency of internalist justification from an externalist perspective. In conclusion, while foundherentism represents a significant step in contemporary epistemology, it faces fundamental challenges as a definitive solution to the problem of epistemic justification.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله