The Münchhausen trilemma, also known as Agrippa's trilemma, is an epistemological thought experiment showing that it is impossible in principle to prove any truth, even in logic and mathematics, without ultimately appealing to accepted assumptions. If a proof is demanded for any given proposition, that same demand can be repeated for the proof offered in support of it, and so on without end. The trilemma holds that there are only three ways to end such a chain of justification: a circular argument, in which the proof of a proposition already presupposes the truth of that proposition; a regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof without end; or a dogmatic argument, which rests on precepts accepted without further defense. Because each option is held to violate ordinary standards of reasoning, the trilemma poses a persistent challenge to any theory of epistemic justification that claims to rest on a secure foundation.
Facts
Classification
Position KindSourced to the subject's own account Origin YearSourced to the subject's own account Sources
1. Munchhausen Trilemma (Wikipedia)
WikipediaMunchhausen trilemma (Wikipedia), on Hans Albert 1968
The name Munchhausen-Trilemma was coined by the German philosopher Hans Albert in 1968 in reference to a trilemma of dogmatism versus infinite regress versus psychologism
Munchhausen trilemma (Wikipedia), introduction
The Munchhausen trilemma (also known as Agrippas trilemma) is an epistemological thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth.
View the Source Frequently Asked Questions
Why can't a chain of justification just stop with premises that are simply accepted as true?
Stopping at accepted premises does not escape the trilemma, it is the trilemma's third horn, the dogmatic argument.
Stopping a chain of justification at premises accepted without further defense is not an escape from the Munchhausen trilemma, it is exactly the trilemma's third horn, the dogmatic argument. The trilemma holds that a demand for proof can always be repeated for whatever proof is offered in support of a claim, and that there are only three ways to end such a chain: a circular argument, in which the proof already presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove, a regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof without end, or a dogmatic argument, which rests on precepts accepted without further defense. Because each of the three options is held to violate ordinary standards of reasoning, simply accepting a stopping point does not resolve the trilemma, it instantiates one horn of it.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.