Saying your epistemology has a “necessary flaw” is an admission of defeat,
In this case, its recognition of reality. I repeat that I would like to defer this conversation until we have something concrete to disagree about. Until then I don’t care about that difference.
The “necessary flaw” arises because all justificationist epistemologies lead to infinite regress or circular arguments or appeals to authority (or even sillier things). That you think there is no alternative to justificationism and I don’t is something concrete we disagree about.
In this case, its recognition of reality. I repeat that I would like to defer this conversation until we have something concrete to disagree about. Until then I don’t care about that difference.
The “necessary flaw” arises because all justificationist epistemologies lead to infinite regress or circular arguments or appeals to authority (or even sillier things). That you think there is no alternative to justificationism and I don’t is something concrete we disagree about.
Adding a reference for this comment: Münchhausen Trilemma.