Ok INFJs, I got a challenge for you. This is a great question in philosophy and I want to see what everyone thinks. Let me lay out what is going on first. Frameworks: A framework is a set of beliefs used to understand the world. For example, the ancient Greeks had a very religious framework built around a pantheon of gods. If the ground started shaking, and the land was torn in twain, through their framework they would likely interpret this event as a sign of the gods' anger. Today, our society works through a framework that is generally more naturalistic: we seek explanations devoid of the supernatural and instead interpret events as a series of physical causes and effects. The Question What makes a framework valid? 1) "A valid framework produces beliefs that are consistent with the truth of the world." The problem with this answer is that whatever "the truth of the world" is can only be judged through a framework! To the Greeks, an earthquake really is the disapproval of the gods, and the physical causes are only the means through which they started it. This answer is circular: you would have to use the framework to judge itself, and so you might as well not even have asked the question. The best you could do is affirm what you already assumed. 2) "Well, another framework, B, confirms our first framework, A!" The problem here is that, now, you have to ask, "Well, what makes B valid then? You can probably see where this is going, because then you would either have to say, "Well, A also reconfirms B!" and we have circularity again, or you would have to say, "Well, C confirms B!" and you get an infinite regression that never ends: D confirms C, E confirms D, and so on. So what do you think the solution to this question is? What makes a framework valid? Does "validity" even apply to frameworks? If not, then how do we determine which one to adopt?