Final answer:
The main problems with considering justification as a forensic doctrine are its potential to make truth seem relative and the difficulty in explaining errors within testimonies.
Step-by-step explanation:
Considering justification as a forensic doctrine within epistemology poses certain problems, which include the issue that what is justified for one community to believe might not hold as truth in another, thereby making truth seem relative. Another problem relates to explaining errors or falsehoods within testimony; when are we justified in believing others, and what happens when testimonies conflict with our predefined notions? Additionally, how should we address the evidence that undermines a person's justification, also known as a defeater?
Responding to these objections could be coursed through understanding the difference between internal and external theories of justification, as well as the debate between coherentism and foundationalism. This deeper analysis into what constitutes as justification can provide a more nuanced view that takes into account different perspectives and contexts, resisting one-size-fits-all solutions. The benefits of adopting such a complex approach to justification include a refined understanding of different belief systems and justifications that allows for a more equitable and diverse epistemic community.