Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A credence threshold of 1 (or sufficiently near 1) constitutes a purely formal, degree-based criterion that is both necessary and sufficient for full belief.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Belief involves normative commitment to truth; credence is merely probabilistic confidence and cannot ground the distinctive normative properties of belief.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Context determines sufficiency; 0.95 credence suffices for belief in mundane cases but fails in high-stakes contexts requiring credence >0.999.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Threshold accounts face the sorites problem: why is credence X sufficient but X-ε insufficient? No formal boundary resolves this principled vagueness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Belief involves a disposition to act; credence near 1 reliably produces action-guiding commitments indistinguishable from categorical belief.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Full belief lacks non-arbitrary degree distinctions; a formal threshold elegantly avoids stipulating what makes 0.99 insufficient versus 0.999 sufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Psychological evidence shows subjects treat high-credence propositions as settled for practical reasoning, mirroring the phenomenology of full belief.
?
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.