Agrippa's Trilemma
The observation that every chain of justification must end in one of three ways: an axiomatic foundation, circular reasoning, or infinite regress.
Named after the ancient Skeptic philosopher Agrippa, this trilemma (also called Münchhausen's Trilemma) demonstrates that any attempt to justify knowledge ultimately faces three options:
1. **Foundational Assertion (Dogmatism)** — The chain stops with an accepted claim. This includes both *axioms* (genuinely self-evident truths whose denial is self-contradictory) and *brute facts* (unjustified assertions like 'it just is' that lack self-evidence). Axioms are the strongest terminus; brute facts are among the weakest. 2. **Circular Reasoning** — The chain loops back to one of its own premises. Virtuous circularity (the bedrock genuinely accounts for itself) is acceptable; vicious circularity (a hidden premise smuggles the conclusion) is a fallacy. 3. **Infinite Regress** — Each justification requires another justification, endlessly.
This framework is central to Debby's scoring system. An argument that terminates at a genuine axiom scores highest. Virtuous circularity scores well. Brute facts, vicious circularity, and infinite regress indicate weak logical foundations.