Epistemic Reliability: The Infinite Regress Argument

The infinite regress argument begins with the premise that all knowledge claims require justification. This means that we cannot simply accept a knowledge claim as true without providing some reason or evidence to support it.

The infinite regress argument leads to the conclusion that all knowledge claims are unreliable, there is no such thing as certain knowledge, and knowledge is impossible.

One objection to the infinite regress argument is that it relies on a false dichotomy between justified and unjustified beliefs. Another objection is that the argument is self-referential, meaning that it uses the same principle that it is trying to undermine. Finally, the argument begs the question by assuming that there is no ultimate foundation for knowledge.

The infinite regress argument is most closely associated with the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume argued that all knowledge claims are ultimately based on sense experience, and that sense experience is unreliable. This led him to conclude that there is no such thing as certain knowledge.

The infinite regress argument has had a profound impact on epistemology. It has shown that all knowledge claims are ultimately unreliable, undermined the foundations of traditional epistemology, and led to skepticism about the possibility of knowledge.