The Importance Of Justification For Objective Knowledge

Humans contain a deep yearning for knowledge. Given that the previous sentence is merely an assertion with no justification, there is no need for one to believe me – it may be true, but until that is justified and found to be true, it is nothing beyond a belief. Prior to a proposition’s justification, one should not be infer that it is knowledge. Justification for objective knowledge can be divided into two categories: a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments. These categories take many names; a posteriori is similar to empirical arguments, which are defined as observational proof. A priori arguments line up with rationalism: proof by definitions and reason. In this paper, empirical and rational routes to discovering the existence of objective …show more content…
Empirical arguments state that truths are grounded in sensory experience. It can be inferred that things exist, simply because we observe them. For a proposition to be considered true, it must line up with reality; and for there to be objective truths, there must be an objective reality. There is no point in debating the fact of this, as one would simply be debating with his or her own self in his or her own reality. The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon. A doubt in the existence of God is a mere pebble in the universe of beliefs. Just because the option of no universal truth could be true, does not show that it is true or even that it is rational to believe …show more content…
Given that these properties exist, there must be sufficient reason for the existence, which leads us to rationalism as an argument. In geometry, proofs consist of conditional statements leading up to a truth; however, these are based on a pre-supposed definition. From a rationalistic point of view, making assertions about the universe, there is not initial pre-supposed truth on which to base statements – it comes down to a debate of opinion. Rationalism would point to reason as that pre-supposed truth. People rely on their own foundational convictions without external proof. Scientists point to science, Christians point to Christ – there is no proof outside the presupposition that the claim is true. Science relies on consistency in the universe for its laws to remain true, which presupposes that the universe is constant. All the core disciplines rely on strikingly similar ideals. For mathematicians, x=x. For physicists, m=m. For philosophers then, there must be an absolute of knowledge too, if they are to reason as scientists do. These facts are innate knowledge, as no person has ever been taught that an object is universal. Object permanence, an ability to understand consistency of volume or existence despite changes in container or location, comes in the first few years of life. This idea is not taught, but comes with the formulation of neuron connections in the brain,