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
    A consistency check that assumes the very principle under... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The inductive justification of induction has value as a consistency check on existing beliefs, even if it cannot persuade skeptics or counterinductivists.

    A consistency check that assumes the very principle under scrutiny commits the circular fallacy Hume identified, not merely a benign redundancy.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Justifying principle P by checking consistency with P presupposes P's reliability, making the argument question-begging rather than probative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's critique of induction shows that using induction to justify induction fails; similarly, using a principle to validate itself is epistemically bankrupt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only external, independent standards can genuinely test a principle; internal consistency checks cannot escape the principle's own assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Consistency checks often merely verify coherence, not justify the principle—they serve different logical purposes and aren't inherently circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not all self-referential reasoning is fallacious; some principles can be self-validating (e.g., 'consistency matters') without undermining their force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's problem targets induction's predictive justification, not consistency verification; extending it to all self-referential checks overgeneralizes his insight.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Consistency checks often merely verify coherence, not justify the principle—they...Hume's critique of induction shows that using induction to justify induction fai...Hume's problem targets induction's predictive justification, not consistency ver...Justifying principle P by checking consistency with P presupposes P's reliabilit...
    +3 moreShow less
    Not all self-referential reasoning is fallacious; some principles can be self-va...Only external, independent standards can genuinely test a principle; internal co...The inductive justification of induction has value as a consistency check on exi...

    Details

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