Casual Account of Knowledge in Belief
The example counters the casual account of knowledge in that belief supports the justification of the statement. The notion that justification is not required as truth is knowledge following the chain of casualty. Additionally, the sequence followed in attaining the experience is more imperative as compared to explanation. Therefore the event, according to the doctor, follows conscious reasons in belief. The objection is counter-example to the theory as every belief or statement requires justification for validity. The chain of account should not follow in some events as it cannot account for knowledge. Further, conclusions are drawn from knowledge in belief instead of been drawn from conscious thinking. This can impact the general knowledge sequence when the flow is flawed. Having conscious reasons for beliefs does not offer a justification for various scenarios in life. Changing the casual account in knowledge belief is essential in the provision of subjective conclusions. I think the objection is valid as justification is vital in drawing conclusions to statements. Additionally, conclusions should not be inclined on following a particular train of beliefs as perceived from a casual account in knowledge. Inferences and links to the established sequences in thinking can impact conscious reasoning.