Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A condition that fails to distinguish between remote and proximate possibilities cannot serve as a plausible epistemic norm.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The distinction between remote and proximate possibilities is vague and context-dependent, not objectively determinate for all cases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rigorous epistemic norms need not track practical urgency; warranted belief can be independent of whether acting matters soon.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some legitimate epistemic standards (e.g., logical consistency) operate without reference to temporal or modal distance at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Epistemic norms should guide practical action; conflating remote and proximate possibilities leads to paralyzing over-caution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rational agents intuitively distinguish near-term from distant risks when forming justified beliefs about what to do now.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A norm indifferent to modal distance collapses into skepticism, making knowledge of anything contingent practically impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42