Philosophy > Epistemology > Internalism vs. Externalism
Description:
Epistemology, a core branch of philosophy, is primarily concerned with the nature, scope, and limitations of knowledge. It explores fundamental questions such as “What is knowledge?” “How is knowledge acquired?” and “What do people know?” Within this broad field, one significant area of debate centers around the theory of knowledge justification, specifically the dichotomy between internalism and externalism.
Internalism vs. Externalism is a pivotal debate in contemporary epistemology that focuses on the sources and requirements of epistemic justification—how beliefs are justified as knowledge.
Internalism:
Internalism posits that the factors contributing to the justification of a belief must be internally accessible to the subject. This means that for a belief to be justified, one must have introspective access to, or be aware of, the justification for the belief. Internalists argue that the justificatory status of a belief depends on factors such as one’s mental states, such as beliefs, experiences, and other cognitive states.
For example, suppose someone believes that the sky is blue because they see the sky. According to internalism, this belief is justified because the person has access to the perceptual experience (seeing the blue sky) that supports the belief.
There are two main types of internalism:
1. Access Internalism: This version asserts that the justificatory factors must be accessible through reflection or introspection.
2. Mentalism: This proposes that the justificatory factors are those mental states that the believer is in.
Externalism:
In contrast, externalism argues that the factors contributing to the justification of a belief can include elements external to the subject’s mental states and need not be introspectively accessible. Externalists maintain that what matters for justification is not necessarily what the believer is aware of, but rather how the belief is formed or its relation to the environment.
One prominent externalist theory is reliabilism, which suggests that a belief is justified if it is produced by a reliable cognitive process. For example, believing that the sky is blue because one’s vision reliably produces true beliefs under normal conditions can be considered justified according to reliabilism, regardless of whether the individual can reflectively access the reasons why their vision is reliable.
Other forms of externalism include:
1. Proper Functionalism: It argues that a belief is justified if it is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, in an environment for which they were designed.
2. Causal Theory of Knowledge: It proposes that knowledge is justified if there is an appropriate causal connection between the belief and the fact it corresponds to.
Key Points of Debate:
- Access vs. Truth-Conduciveness: Internalists prioritize accessible justifications that one can reflect upon, while externalists emphasize factors that actually lead to the truth, even if they are not accessible to the believer.
- The New Evil Demon Problem: This thought experiment questions whether a person who is deceived by an evil demon (and hence forms false beliefs) can still be justified in their beliefs if they are as internally coherent as those of a non-deceived person.
- Epistemic Responsibility: Internalism often ties justification to epistemic responsibility—if one is to be held responsible for their beliefs, they must have access to justifying reasons.
In summary, the internalism vs. externalism debate in epistemology delves into the nature of epistemic justification, with internalism emphasizing internal accessibility of justifying reasons and externalism prioritizing the actual factors contributing to the truth of a belief. This debate has significant implications for understanding what it means to have knowledge and how individuals can claim to know anything at all.