Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A belief is infallible if no possible world contains that belief being held and being false simultaneously, which is compatible with the proposition itself being contingent.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a belief is infallible whenever held, this conflates psychological certainty with modal truth—subjects can be certain yet still mistaken.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A contingent proposition can be false in some possible worlds; if a belief about it is held in those worlds, infallibility seems violated by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim appears to define infallibility circularly: 'no possible world contains simultaneous falsity' just restates the conclusion without explaining why.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Modal infallibility (truth in all possible worlds where held) is coherent and distinct from metaphysical necessity of the proposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some beliefs about logical truths seem infallible in this sense yet the propositions themselves remain contingent in their logical status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework preserves both epistemic security for certain beliefs and metaphysical openness about what could have been the case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.