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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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