Evidential Basis in Epistemic Justification

In this essay, the author

• Explains that there are various approaches to epistemology and philosophy of science, and the attempt to naturalize them is the newest approach.
• Explains that epistemology has been interested in the notion of epistemic justification since edmund l. gettier's article "is justified true belief knowledge?"
• Opines that an effective way of inquiring about the concept of justification could be to investigate it in a definite, problematic case.
• Analyzes how the lottery paradox originated by h. e. kyburg. it is a fair lottery with thousand tickets, in which only one ticket will be the winner.
• Compares prob(p1, b) >.9 &
• Explains that s is justified in believing that either ticket 1 or ticket 2 will win the lottery, or a ticket 1000, on the grounds of the following piece of evidence derived from b.
• Explains the distinction between general and specific elements of justification in the lottery paradox.
• Explains that the lottery paradox is a paradox of justification, since epistemologists do not distinguish the exclusive disjunction from the inclusive one.
• Argues that rejection of ppjr would eliminate all inconsistencies in lps and preserve the unrestricted right of inference.
• Explains that ppjr and cp did not compromise with each other in an epistemic context because the individual justifications were overridden by the low probability of their conjunction.
• Explains that defending the non-paradoxical preface case as a case of epistemic justification would essentially mean to defend cp.
• Proposes a real solution to the lottery paradox by refuting individual justifications, moreover without rejecting ppjr.
• Explains the solution to the lottery paradox by refuting the lottery case as an epistemic one. the paradoxical result expresses the justification of s's two conjunct-contradictory beliefs.
• Explains that the lottery case is a destructive closed system, in which all of the pi's (i=1,..., 1000) have the same position and power of occurrence as e1 declares.
• Analyzes the structure of a paradox, stating that it has three different structural parts that contain some problems giving rise to the paradox.
• Explains that paradoxes are important from a philosophical point of view. they influence the intellectual development of man and add new things to his intellectual mass.
• Explains that epistemologists have made contributions to the literature of the lottery paradox and justification, but they could not see the point which should have the priority.
• Explains that epistemic justification can be distinguished from non-epistemic, like moral and prudential, ones.
• Explains that the barber paradox is based on a so-and-so case, whereas the lottery case is objected from an epistemological point of view.
• Explains kyburg, h. e. jr., probability and the logic of rational belief, wesleyan univ. press, middletown.
• Explains pollock, j. l., nomic probability and the foundations of induction, oxford univ. press.
• Explains that s is justified in believing that "ipi, i=1,..., 1000, on the basis of the following conjunction principle cp as a principle of justification.
• Explains the principle of closure in justification, which is widely accepted by epistemologists.
• Explains that epistemologists have rejected cp or ppjr to avoid the lottery paradox. the 1001st member of lps is eliminated and the open contradiction vanishes.
• Explains that pieces of evidence, whether probabilistic or non-probabilistic, give clues to the considered situation in justification, i.e. this concrete case of the lottery.
• Analyzes how a person can be justified epistemically in believing propositions that are justified to her if she knows that this set is logically inconsistent.