What's the difference between an internal vs. an external view of epistemic justification?

Question

I'm working on a research paper and my topic is basically "do we define what we "know" by being justified by some other person or object telling us we are "right", like for example I could point to a "cat" but I'd only BELIEVE I was seeing a "cat" by someone ELSE agreeing it's a "cat", or by our own mind's "born wisdom", so that we just "know" without being justified", like for example how people just are supposed to "know" the difference between right and wrong. Do we come up with these concepts on our OWN, or are they learned from external sources? ..so, my question is what would be an "internal" justification, and what would be an "external" example of epistemic justification? And how would I go about proving one side is better than the other, as far as philosophers who believed one side or the other? I have to be able to defend my arguement either for or against internal or external.

Answer 1

This is one of the "classic" problems posed by philosophers...
the often mis-quoted/misunderstood question of Kant relates to this very issue..
for a start....read Kant...the tree falling in the forest if there is no one around is exactly the question of external/internal knowledge.

Be advised, though, even Kant couldn't resolve the question "absolutely" in favor of one or the other perspective

If you read the results of the "human genome project"....
[Washington University, St.Louis, MO is a good starting point for references]
according to geneticists....no less than 70% but probably as much as 80% of who we are/the decisions we make/the knowledge we have or the knowledge we retain....is defined by our genes....predispositioned, as it were; quasi predetermined...
The genetic view offers an outside voice to accept, reject, or modify a philosophers' theoretical position

Answer 2

Internal Justification

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What's the difference between an internal vs. an external view of epistemic justification?
I'm working on a research paper and my topic is basically "do we define what we "know" by being justified by some other person or object telling us we are "right", like for example I could point to a "cat" but I'd only BELIEVE I was seeing a...

Answer 4

My 2 pennies worth - An innate sense of right of wrong may stem from a tribal survival instinct. Mankind's success has always depended on its ability to form large cohesive social groups. Any behavior which jeopardises this cohesion can be defined as wrong. This cohesive attribute may well be genetically coded behavior - it certainly is instinctive.