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
    A circular argument is acceptable when justifying a funda... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A circular argument is acceptable when justifying a fundamental form of reasoning

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There is no more basic form of reasoning to appeal to when justifying a fundamental form of reasoning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All that can reasonably be demanded of a fundamental form of reasoning is that it endorse itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Self-endorsement is not a reliable criterion of legitimacy, since any arbitrary rule of inference can be constructed to validate itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A deductive argument that induction is reliable because induction says so is formally no different from validating astrology by astrological reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The acceptability of circular reasoning must be judged by an external standard, or the criterion of acceptability becomes vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic circularity conflates the pragmatic unavoidability of a reasoning practice with its rational justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' distinguishes between hinges we act on and claims we are entitled to assert as justified, blocking the inference from necessity to warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A deductive argument that induction is reliable because induction says so is for...All that can reasonably be demanded of a fundamental form of reasoning is that i...Epistemic circularity conflates the pragmatic unavoidability of a reasoning prac...Self-endorsement is not a reliable criterion of legitimacy, since any arbitrary ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The acceptability of circular reasoning must be judged by an external standard, ...There is no more basic form of reasoning to appeal to when justifying a fundamen...Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' distinguishes between hinges we act on and claims ...

    Similar

    Some circular arguments of a specific kind are acceptable as justifica...92%A rule-circular argument is not valid merely because it does not guara...87%Rule-circular arguments are not necessarily viciously circular86%Rejecting premise P6 allows circular arguments to serve as justificati...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    It might be suggested that although a circular argument is ordinarily unable to justify its conclusion, a circular argument is acceptable in the case of justifying a fundamental form of reasoning. After all, there is nowhere more basic to turn, so all that we can reasonably demand of a fundamental form of reasoning is that it endorse itself. (Lange 2011: 56)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit