“The Transcendental Argument for Strong Holism
(1) Interpretation is circular, indeterminate, and perspectival (the thesis of the ‘hermeneutic circle’)
(2) Interpretation occurs only against a ‘background,’ a network of unspecifiable beliefs and practices (the thesis of the ‘background’)
(3) The background is a condition for the possibility of interpretation, which limits its possibilities for epistemic justification (the thesis of contextual limits)
(4) All cognitive activities take place against a background and are interpretive and hence circular, indeterminate, and perspectival (the thesis of the universality of interpretation). Therefore, the conditions of interpretation are such that no ‘true’ or ‘correct’ interpretations are possible (interpretive scepticism).” (pp135-136)
The argument for a holistic framing for comes in four stages. First, is circular and comes from a personal perspective of the . Therefore the is indeterminate as ‘correct.’ Secondly, can only happen within a context of a person’s socio-cultural background, informed by their own previous experiences and tacit knowledge. For such an to make sense to the individual as far as they it, it is one that will be shared (to varying degrees) within a socio-cultural group. This is an epistemic justification. There is some basis to accept the individual’s as ‘correct’ as it is supported by existing ideas and concepts that infer an accepted probability that infers that the is valid. This supporting idea or concept must be accepted as being ‘true’ and not irrational, as otherwise the will be false. There needs to be justification that the supporting idea or concept that the new springs from is accepted as correct.