The ethical conflict and justificatory structure of empirical knowledge
The ethical conflict, in this case, is in regard to how one can determine whether any empirical belief is true. The argument that presents itself in this reading is in reference to the justificatory structure of empirical knowledge. Essentially, an empirical belief is justified by the provision of a reason to validate the belief, which must come from a prior justified empirical belief. Additionally, the second empirical belief must also be justified by a further empirical belief that requires justification in the same sense. The argument is that this will lead to a seemingly vicious and infinite regress of justifying beliefs.
The dependence of justification on prior beliefs
The concept highlighted here is that the justification of a specific belief is in dependance to the justification of prior beliefs, which makes it difficult for one to see how justification even starts. In this regard, the threatened outcome is the fact that one can only skeptically conclude that empirical knowledge does not exist and thus no individual has a reason to believe any empirical belief.
Can empirical beliefs be justified in a specific way that is not determined by other specific beliefs?
The central epistemological problem and the need for clarification
The concept that has not been clearly defined is in regard to the central epistemological problem concerning how empirical knowledge is justified. It is difficult to understand the justification of the foundational beliefs once inference is precluded from further empirical belief since this leads to an infinite journey of trying to justify one's belief and work. The author thus needs to clarify how the justification is achieved. Personally, I have tried to apply the concept of the justification of specific research material to no success since I must look towards other research material that has been justified to try and find justification.
