CF Dictionary · Knowledge & Epistemology
Regress Argument
The argument that any justification chain either regresses infinitely, loops, or stops at dogma. CF uses it to refute infallibilism.
The regress argument is an ancient challenge to justificationism with three horns:
- Infinite regress. Claim A is justified by B; B by C; C by D; … without end.
- Circular reasoning. B justifies A, A justifies B. (Or a longer loop.)
- Dogmatism. The chain stops at some unjustified starting point.
Because any justification chain must fall into one of these three, no chain succeeds in producing an infallibly justified belief. This is the central argument CF and CR use to refute infallibilism.
How CF handles the regress
CF refuses to fight the regress (you can't win) and instead abandons the goal of justified knowledge. CF replaces "justified true belief" with "non-refuted IGC". You don't need a justified starting point; you need an idea with no known error.
This is a major move. CR accepts the regress about empirical knowledge but tries to salvage certainty in logic. CF goes further: universals in logic are also fallible, so logic itself is subject to error-correction.
Probabilistic form
The regress also attacks probabilistic justification. If J1 makes X 99% likely, and J2 makes J1 99% likely, then after n steps the joint probability of infallibility approaches zero.
"You either have to give infinitely many new arguments, or you have to repeat an argument and therefore use circular logic." — criticalfallibilism.com