false belief according to whom. i might say that genesis is a demonstrably false belief being that there is much evidence to suggest the big bang as an alternative explanation for the creation of the visible universe. and yet many feel that their belief in creation does indeed constitute adequat grounds for genesis being justified based solely on that belief.

Your argument is incoherent, and I've shown why. I've nothing further until this is given it's just due.

great then. nothing further as i've given it what i see as it's just do. now i suppose we can debate individual just do, huh? lol.

"Imma gunna tell yous whats yous gunna thinks, OK?"

Brilliant.

This throws away the objective qualities of philosophical justification. It tosses its usefulness in the trash heap. This is anti logic.

This is the problem we keep having, people continue to use the colloquial version of a word instead of the philosophical or scientific and rigorously defined versions. When someone sets out a definition for a particular conversation it must be adhered to within that conversation unless a separate argument is being used that relies on a different definition and then that one must be adhered to . . . however one cannot refute the other using different definitions or you get what we have here . . . . a failure to communicate.

What is worse is when within the same argument both are used. Then the incoherence begins. We can call it apple, or BLAGERSQUAT, but we must agree on its meaning and it must not change for the argument to remain coherent.

Sloppy thinking.

JR's justification is really just rationalization or under the TOJ it would be warrant as previously stated, not philosophical justification. Excusing an act based on preference has nothing to do with logical justification.

Please take a moment and read about the theory of justification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

and just what are these "objective qualities of philosophical justification"? objective qualities by what measure or more correctly WHO'S measure. everything about philisophical justification his highly SUBJECTIVE based on individual reasoning.



who set out what definition that must be adhered to? i don't recall agreeing on or even discussing definitions here.





where have i offered justification of anything other than within my own mind?



i've a pretty souped up search engine too if i choose to research further.

Ok, so here it is, I know shocking . . . its a philosophy forum, and this is the thread on Justification, I know too much trouble to read up on it before arguing your side.

Fantastic idea.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justification-public/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/


This one is on par with your argument jrbogie...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-intext/

what makes you think i've not read up on the topic? ah, you mean i haven't read what you read. got it. now, have you read what i read? i see soul has posted more for us all to read. hey, instead of speaking our own views in open forum such as this we could have all of our search engines linked together i'll bet and then our computers can argue my link against your link automatically. then soul's computer can come back with a half dozen links which jeannie will counter with,..............oh my god!!! no jeannie!!! not fair!!!!! A YOU TUBE VIDEO????????!!!!!!! INCOMMING!!!!!!!!!!!


or we could just have an exchange of individual viewpoints. you know, people like you and me who's views we can challenge. i can't challenge the views of an author of an internet link who's not here to answer can i? and of course you can challenge my views without help from wiki can you not? actually you've no choice as i don't do wiki.

Is it at all possible that the word 'justification' is being over simplified?

Justification is the why. It could be grounded in logic, theology, cultural norms, etc.

I also think that "truth" and "fact" have different meanings. I'll bring in the bible as an example. It holds a place of truth for a lot of people-- it explains things for them which satisifies their need for, well, justification, and to them, this is irrefutable. Fact, on the other hand rests on widely known/proven accuracies. "Truths" can be debatable among different people, but fact is generally not up for debate. It's solid. Or I guess I can go so far as to say that truth is private, fact is public. (<---see how I stay on topic here )

Whether or not justification is a personal or public matter depends on who is affected... For example, I am personally justified (accountable to me) when I decide that I will not clean the house today like I need to. My justification and whether any one else agrees matters not. It's personal justification.

Justification becomes a public matter when other people are affected by its outcome. Hilter orchestrated the slaughter of thousands of people, therefore his personal justification is irrelevent. It becomes a public matter.

sure, any sane person would agree that hitler's personal justification is irrelevant but the same argument can be made about bush's and obama's actions in iraq and afghanistan. hitler justified his actions largely on the versailes treaty and many americans use 9/11 as justification for the wars today while at the same time an equal number of citizens say the wars are unjustifiable. when you say 'it becomes a public matter' all you're really saying is that many or even most of the individuals who make up the publice agree on the particular matter but each must see justification in his/her own mind. the public in germany in the thirties was behind hitler. there is plenty of evidence to show that. the public in saudi arabia justifies the beating of a husband's wife if he shames him or his family. yet most americans feel that is unjustifiable but you'll still see the occasional wife beater in ammerica justifying his putting his wife in intensive care with, "well if she wouldn't keep pissing me off i wouldn't have to beat her." so here justice is served when he ends up in jail but in saudi arabia his actions wer justified publically.

when it comes to public justification all we really have are the laws society makes. that's simply becaus we cannot all agree on what is and is not justifiable; what is right and what is wrong. if the public as a whole did agree we wouldn't need laws. the public is divided on roe v wade, for instance. likely half the population feel that laws banning abortion would be justified and half would vote no. a half century ago many if not most of the folks that make up the public in the southern states felt the civil rights act was unjustifiable. how can you justify a law that makes white kids have attend the same school as black kids? the feelings were so divided that the national guard had to be called to the steps of the university of alabama to forcibly remove the state governor himself. so if today we look back and find hitler's or george wallace's actions highly unjustified, did public justification ever exist in the first place? or did it exist in germany but not in america outside of montgomery alabama at the time?

Justification is more than just a word. It is an act. We are necessarily social creatures who adopt pre-existing belief early on with language acquisition and social status/pecking order. Even in the cases of 'personal' justification, there is a necessarily social element. Linguistic meaning is social. Attribution of value is largely social and has a social basis. Personal value assessment has it's roots in social constructs, hence the change in the collective conscience that is clearly demonstrated throughout written history.

Without language, there is no justification. Language is a social construct. Therefore, justification is necessarily contingent upon social constructs.