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 circular argument is acceptable when justifying a fundamental form of reasoning

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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